# Did you Support War in Iraq??



## The Banker (Apr 17, 2021)

A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.

Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure.  

Now these pathetic liars try to act like they were against the war all along, that is how pathetic Trumpers are.  These people don't even know what they support or oppose, they wait for Foxnews to tell them what to think, and then just go with it...









						Republican attitudes on Iraq trip up GOP candidates
					

Was the Iraq war the right thing to do or the wrong thing? Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.




					www.msnbc.com


----------



## Likkmee (Apr 17, 2021)




----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 17, 2021)

Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.


----------



## Likkmee (Apr 17, 2021)

Wonder of GHWB was Papi(spanish) or Poppy (cia) HMMMMM


----------



## deannalw (Apr 17, 2021)

Like Kerry's comment "I was for it before I was against it"?


----------



## struth (Apr 17, 2021)

Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too


----------



## Peace (Apr 17, 2021)

War in Iraq was going to happen after George W. Bush was selected by the USSC, so it was not surprising...

Any Republican that is as old as me or older claims they didn’t support the invasion are lying and knowingly lying.

America made the grave mistake of removing Saddam because it left a power vacuum that allowed Iran to fill which has been far more dangerous and allowed China and Russia to gain better influence within Iraq.

I never accepted the mistake and the fact is America had no business invading!


----------



## Kondor3 (Apr 17, 2021)

For...

*Until* I found out that the casus belli was bull$hit...

Right about the time that Colin Powell disgraced himself by lying his a$$ off at the United Nations, at Shrub's bidding...


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.



Bush, Cheney and the Brits sold the war. Operation Mass Appeal started in 1998. I wrote letters to the newspaper, Congressmen, Senators  and finally resigned the Republican party right before  the invasion. Everybody who  knew anything about the Middle East or the oil business opposed it. The Arabs, oilmen, diplomats and historians knew it was going to be an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## Jets (Apr 17, 2021)

Only in the beginning because I believed that Hussein had WMD.

That said, I would have preferred President Bush kept the focus on killing OBL...


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


You are turning into being quite the liar.

No one on the right loved the war in Iraq.  No one on the right loves war.

What they said then was that Iraq was a necessary war in order to get advantage in the war on terror.

The problem is, the war was WON, but no one wanted to leave after that.

We did NOT support nation-building.  War means you go in, break everything, then go home.

So, stop your lies.


----------



## Utilitarian (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


You realize that about 40% of the Democrats in the House and the majority of Democratic Senators voted to authorize the Iraq War as well, right?

Don't get me wrong.  I don't like neocons either, but it's not like the Republicans did this on their own.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2021)

Jets said:


> Only in the beginning because I believed that Hussein had WMD.
> 
> That said, I would have preferred President Bush kept the focus on killing OBL...



Iraq was crippled by two decades of war an sanctions. But, Saddam was trying to keep up appearances to keep Iran at bay.

Further, the Dual Containment Policy had worked for 20 years until Dumbass Bush came along.


----------



## NotVote (Apr 17, 2021)

Fuck you in the nose asshole.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2021)

Utilitarian said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> ...



Cheney cooked the intelligence. I just couldn't believe the profound ignorance on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Utilitarian (Apr 17, 2021)

surada said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


Well, that should tell us how much we should trust the intelligence agencies in general.  They're political entities, not fact-finding agencies.  It's the way that the IRS, ATF, and DOJ have become as well.


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 17, 2021)

surada said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> > Only in the beginning because I believed that Hussein had WMD.
> ...


Iraq was the biggest exporter of terror, including Iran until Saddam was forced from power.

I'm not sure where you get your talking points, but stop using them.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2021)

Utilitarian said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Utilitarian said:
> ...



ALL the intelligence went thru Cheney and he had failed at getting sanctions lifted on Libya, Iraq and the Stans.


----------



## Utilitarian (Apr 17, 2021)

surada said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


I'm just saying that, with what Cheney was able to do, there's no reason to assume that other presidents/VPs haven't done similar things.  They probably have just been more subtle about it.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Jets said:
> ...



You have no idea what you are talking about. Operation  Mass Appeal was on a mission to create a need to attack Iraq. Have you never read Bibi's Clean Break Strategy from 1996 or the PNAC letter to Clinton in 1998? Look at the dual citizen signatories. It was a complete cock up.


----------



## surada (Apr 17, 2021)

Utilitarian said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Utilitarian said:
> ...



Cheney was hired by Haliburton to use his Washington contacts to lift sanctions. He failed.


----------



## Utilitarian (Apr 17, 2021)

surada said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


That just means that not all of the deep state is on the same side.  Any system as large as ours is going to have multiple power players involved.  Keeping the sanctions in place probably benefited some other business connections of a different elite circle.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Apr 17, 2021)

I was for the war. And it was done. We destroyed their military and they were no longer a threat to anyone. We should have been done at that point. What I wasn’t for is two decades of nation building.


----------



## gipper (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


Just about every democratic member of congress including old Joe, rabidly supported the war in Iraq.


----------



## Lastamender (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


Joe Biden did.


----------



## Borillar (Apr 17, 2021)

I was against the War in Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11. We went in for bogus reasons and it has cost us thousands of US lives and trillions of dollars. It cost the Iraqis hundreds of thousands of lives - maybe millions if you include all the displaced masses, disease, factional warfare, etc. Possibly the biggest fuckup in US history.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Apr 17, 2021)

Borillar said:


> I was against the War in Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11. We went in for bogus reasons and it has cost us thousands of US lives and trillions of dollars. It cost the Iraqis hundreds of thousands of lives - maybe millions if you include all the displaced masses, disease, factional warfare, etc. Possibly the biggest fuckup in US history.


It only became a fuck up when our government decided we needed to rebuild them to our liking. A job our military should never have. Send your fucking diplomats and their kids to do that. We won that war handily. All of our troops should have left and prepared for the next time we need to kick someone’s ass.


----------



## Borillar (Apr 17, 2021)

Missouri_Mike said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> > I was against the War in Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11. We went in for bogus reasons and it has cost us thousands of US lives and trillions of dollars. It cost the Iraqis hundreds of thousands of lives - maybe millions if you include all the displaced masses, disease, factional warfare, etc. Possibly the biggest fuckup in US history.
> ...


We couldn't leave. The republicans wouldn't have any of that democrat cutting and running.


----------



## McRib (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.



There should be a statue made of former Senator Lincoln Chafee, R-RI., the only Republican Senator with balls, a conscience, and intelligence.


----------



## hjmick (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...




It was the reason I disassociated myself from the Republican party. I made no secret of it then, I make no secret of it now.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Apr 17, 2021)

Borillar said:


> Missouri_Mike said:
> 
> 
> > Borillar said:
> ...


Cut and run from what? A decisive victory?


----------



## Thinker101 (Apr 17, 2021)




----------



## Borillar (Apr 17, 2021)

Missouri_Mike said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> > Missouri_Mike said:
> ...


More like the mother of all tar babies.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry all voted for the war.  You’re a fool if you think it was a “Republican” war.


----------



## themirrorthief (Apr 17, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> War in Iraq was going to happen after George W. Bush was selected by the USSC, so it was not surprising...
> 
> Any Republican that is as old as me or older claims they didn’t support the invasion are lying and knowingly lying.
> 
> ...


Biden was all for it...remember him, war lover Joe


----------



## Peace (Apr 17, 2021)

themirrorthief said:


> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> > War in Iraq was going to happen after George W. Bush was selected by the USSC, so it was not surprising...
> ...



Noticed something about the right and left they mention the other side thinking it will excuse their side for their stupidity.

Biden and Clinton voted in support, so let me ask you do you truly believe I have forgiven or forgotten their vote?

Answer is no but it does not excuse the right that now pretends to be against the invasion when they were all for it and calling anyone that disagreed with them terrorists...


----------



## Turtlesoup (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


I supported it and kept saying that invading would be so evil that BUSH and CHENEY had to have a legitimate reason which they weren't sharing us ---------but I was wrong.  I think like the dems--they took bribes to start another stupid war in the ME.  It's all wrong, all immoral, and all treasonous.


----------



## Esdraelon (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


Bruh... you seem a little tense.  Erryting gone be airree...


----------



## mdk (Apr 17, 2021)

From the very beginning. I remember being told I hated America, didn't support the troops, wanted another 9/11, and we had to fight them over there or it would be here instead. What a sad waste of our blood and treasury its been. Nowadays you can hardly find a person that claims they supported it even though countless folks did.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 17, 2021)

struth said:


> Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too



They voted to give GW the deciding power to show Saddam we had the resolve, but they al urged him to go through the UN and live up to his promise to allow the inspectors to complete their mission and to go back to the for a final UN authorization.  He lied and invaded anyway.


----------



## JWBooth (Apr 17, 2021)

Was against it when they were ginning up the propaganda to convince the American people, and have never waivered in my opposition. Never bought the bullshit.


----------



## Dana7360 (Apr 17, 2021)

gipper said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> ...




Yes biden did vote for the Iraq war. Which is one of the reasons why he was my second to last choice for president.

However.

In 2003 there were 205 democrats in the House of Representatives. Of those 205 democrats, 132 of them voted AGAINST the Iraq war. Which is more than half of the 205 democrats in the House at the time.

In 2003 there were 48 democrats in the Senate. Of those 48, 22 of them voted against the war. Which is slightly less than half.

What it comes down to, your statement that just about every democratic member of congress rabidly supported the Iraq war is incorrect.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 17, 2021)

Utilitarian said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> ...


He is not interested in facts like that thst expose that the dems wanted the war as well.


----------



## Mac-7 (Apr 17, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> We did NOT support nation-building. War means you go in, break everything, then go home.


Well said

and in fact it as liberals who infected bush43 with the idea of nation building in the first place


----------



## McRib (Apr 17, 2021)

theHawk said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> ...



They were foolish enough to believe the Republicans who incessantly called for pre emptive action, lest we all die from weapons of mass destruction. 

They were fools to believe Republicans, and any Democrat who believes a Republican after the Iraq war disaster is a fool and should be voted out of office.


----------



## Slyhunter (Apr 17, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


I was for the war a quick strike in kill Hussein and get the fuck out again. I wasn't for delaying giving him time to hide his wmd's before going in. I wasn't for waiting until the UN agreed with us to go in. We screwed up by trying to build a coalition instead of just going in and taking his ass out.


----------



## McRib (Apr 17, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > We did NOT support nation-building. War means you go in, break everything, then go home.
> ...



Lol…..more revisionist history. Bush and the neocons started saying Saddam Hussein was responsible in the days after the 9/11 attack, I know, I remember hearing it. They were laying the groundwork for an invasion on the dead bodies of 3,000 Americans, and these soulless warmongers made you cheer the idea every fucking time they discussed it, which was every day.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...



It was pretty obvious, even at the time, that the Iraq War wasn't to do with what they were saying it was about.

Over time it's become clearer and clearer that it was part of a war on OPEC


----------



## zaangalewa (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. ...



On reason of the systemic lies of the government of the USA under George W. Bush and the pressure of the leading US politicians that everyone is a terrorist and traitor, who supports Saddam Hussein - what no one was and/or did do, who was against this war, which was made under the totally wrong doctrine of a so called "preemptive strike".

And yes: You was absolutelly mindmanipulated and brought in one line a short time before this war started. Not only republicans were this. Everyone who tried to warn any US-American not to do this nonsense was not taken serios. "You're next" was the only answer for everyone who tried to speak reasonable with US-Americans. You ran with blind eyes in full speed into this easily avoidable nonsense disaster in which you had created ISIS and had destabalized a big part of the world - what had caused big streams of refugees.

By he way. I heard you try to help 15,000 refugees a year. Whooow! What a proud nation full of former migrants, who had indirectly caused millions of refugees. With this number you will need 3500 years for the 52 million migrants, who came in the 19th century into your country.


----------



## basquebromance (Apr 18, 2021)

the Iraq War was an agonizing problem, made much worse by Bush's mishandling of it, although i think the Patreaeus surge worked


----------



## cnm (Apr 18, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> No one on the right loved the war in Iraq. No one on the right loves war.


Oh the hilarity.


----------



## cnm (Apr 18, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Everyone who tried to warn any US-American not to do this nonsense was not taken serios.


Absolutely. There's some convenient rewriting of history going on.


----------



## Lakhota (Apr 18, 2021)

> *Did you Support War in Iraq??*



Although I enjoyed seeing Saddam get his ass kicked in the First Gulf War - I did not support war in Iraq.  It was all based on lies, smoke and mirrors by the Bushes.

*First Gulf War: Bush 41* suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait by giving him the "green light" via April Glaspie.

That fateful meeting on July 25, 1990 between then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and President Saddam Hussein that the Iraqi leader interpreted as a "green light" from Washington for his invasion of Kuwait eight days later.

TRANSCRIPT: Saddam-Glaspie Meeting

WikiLeaks, April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein

*Second Gulf War: Bush 43* conjured up lies to invade Iraq a 2nd time.  He was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11.

The Downing Street Memo


----------



## gipper (Apr 18, 2021)

Dana7360 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


You are correct. I stand corrected.
HOUSE VOTE
82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
SENATE VOTE
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia


----------



## ESay (Apr 18, 2021)

surada said:


> The Arabs, oilmen, diplomats and historians knew it was going to be an unmitigated disaster


Oilmen? I thought that oilmen were one the main sponsors of the war.


----------



## gtopa1 (Apr 18, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> War in Iraq was going to happen after George W. Bush was selected by the USSC, so it was not surprising...
> 
> Any Republican that is as old as me or older claims they didn’t support the invasion are lying and knowingly lying.
> 
> ...


Carter allowed Iran to fall...the fukkking idiot!!!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Apr 18, 2021)

odanny said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


pssst...it was Clinton's "Secret Service" at the time.....the advice was screwed up. Bush SHOULD have gone is as he did ON THE ADVICE HE WAS GIVEN!! In fact after Saddam's slaughter of his own people I fully supported taking him out and blame Clinton for not doing so before the slaughter. However, if truth be told, it was daddy Bush who stuffed up by not rooting out Saddam after Kuwait and we all know that was because the 4th wasn't allowed to transit Turkey......bloody assholes....in the matter. That WOULD have smashed Saddam's Military to atoms!!! THEN the opposition would have been the ONLY option instead of a Saddam in a position of domestic strength.

imo of course.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Apr 18, 2021)

Lakhota said:


> > *Did you Support War in Iraq??*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So Saddam was INNOCENT!!! lmao. You lying shitweasel!!! He tried to do a Vietnam Ford style but he "miscalculated".....and got his bottom spanked. It SHOULD have ended then but no: Turkey blocked the 4th.



Greg


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 18, 2021)

The Iraq debacle was an obvious mistake to any observant, objective, intelligent person, not to mention illegal. All who voted for it are war criminals. One of them is now President. The Republican and Democratic parties bear responsibility.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Apr 18, 2021)

gipper said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> ...


Which means that the BIG GUY was getting bribe kick backs from someone to support the war............


----------



## gtopa1 (Apr 18, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> The Iraq debacle was an obvious mistake to any observant, objective, intelligent person, not to mention illegal. All who voted for it are war criminals. One of them is now President. The Republican and Democratic parties bear responsibility.


The mistake was leaving Saddam in POWER for so long; damn ridiculous. And the Turks didn't help!!!

*Turkey* has resisted US pressure to allow attacks on Iraq from its soil, forbidding American warplanes to use its air bases and the *4th* Infantry Division to set up camps just north of the Iraqi...






						US troops pack up and go as Turkey refuses any help
					






					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Apr 18, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


................or not intervene when Saddam was murdering hundreds of thousands..........ceegars maybe???????

Greg


----------



## Mac-7 (Apr 18, 2021)

odanny said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Speaking for myself only, I was for the invasion of Iraq in the beginning but eventually realized it was a mistake

the afghan war was the correct thing to do but only as a limited 6 month operation

we went wrong with  Bush’s grandoise dreams of nation building

the afghans are far too backward and uncivilized for that to work


----------



## NoNukes (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


I was always against it.


----------



## NoNukes (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.


Do not try to blame the war on the Democrats. You kniw who started it.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

Missouri_Mike said:


> I was for the war. And it was done. We destroyed their military and they were no longer a threat to anyone. We should have been done at that point. What I wasn’t for is two decades of nation building.



We destablized Iraq and gave birth to ISIS. That was the plan.. Read Clean Break Strategy from 1996.


----------



## beautress (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.


He has forgotten history for the sole purpose of scorching the earth of Republicans who disallowed Saddam Hussein's use of the WOMDs such as sarin gas with which he destroyed 30 villages in Iraq because they were Kurds or merely disagreed with his murders of legislators who opposed his rape rooms of underaged young women to sate the lusts of married men he wished to "reward" for their carrying out his vengeance that were endless considering his paranoid schizophrenia. Thanks to Dubya the insanity stopped with his intervention of mercy to the people who were being extinguished by genocide inflicted by Insane Hussein. God bless George W. Bush for saying No to that insidiously hateful demon whose copious murders were a stain on the human race.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

Missouri_Mike said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> > I was against the War in Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11. We went in for bogus reasons and it has cost us thousands of US lives and trillions of dollars. It cost the Iraqis hundreds of thousands of lives - maybe millions if you include all the displaced masses, disease, factional warfare, etc. Possibly the biggest fuckup in US history.
> ...



Bush installed an Iranian stooge to run Iraq.. Maliki  treated the Iraqi Sunni's very badly.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

beautress said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.
> ...



Saddam did what Churchill nd the RAF did in Iraq in 1920 .. Arthur Harris of Dresden fame killed 10s of thousands with poison gas bombing. 

Who was mental?

Bush said he was fighting Gog and Magog.. He's a Baptist futurist.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.


... Based on GOP and Fox lies... Brain washed functional moron. Stupidest war ever. I was saying the French were right and wait..... Franco stands for Francophile. The GOP are a total disgrace the last 40 years.... Corrupt bubble and bust economics, The stupidest wars ever, and garbage propaganda for the chumps....


----------



## beautress (Apr 18, 2021)

surada said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


Not at all. The trouble with lying to yourself is that others find out about it and your house of cards fall right on top of your head which fortunately is pointy to put it mildly.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

beautress said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...



You don't know anything about Iraq. We put Iran in the catbird seat, destroyed the Dual Containment Policy that had worked for 20 years, created ISIS,  and ruined the Iraqi oil business for more than a decade.

Before we invaded Iraq there were over 50 Christian churches in Baghdad.

NOW, read Bibi's Clean Break Strategy.

Note that the Arabs, oilmen, historians diplomats and ALL the Americans in the Middle East opposed the invasion as a stupid blunder.


----------



## struth (Apr 18, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too
> ...


hahahha what BS....they voted to authorize the us of military force in Iraq...there was NOT one stipulation about going to the UN....not that it would ever be necessary...but in fact one of the main factors was the fact they voted to liberate Iraq, a few years earlier during the Clinton admin


The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]


Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
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.





__





						Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
					

President Bush and House Leaders agreed on a resolution to authorize force against Iraq. The President believes such a resolution will make available the tools that he needs to deal seriously with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.



					georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov
				




Just stop twisting....it's the libtards that flip flopped and pretend now they were against it, when for years they were all for it.


----------



## easyt65 (Apr 18, 2021)

Did / Dies anyone support the Nobel Peace Prize Winner's on-going war?


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

theHawk said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> ...


If there was no election fraud in FL, and an election steal by the conservative USSC, and if the real winner of the election- Al Gore were president, then there would not have been a war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq was a GOP plan.  It was proposed by the GOP, it was pushed relentlessly by the GOP, and opposition to the war was called unpatriotic by the GOP.

Then the GOP failed and failed miserably in their war, and the GOP war in Iraq was one of the worst decision in US history.

“The worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country: going into the Middle East, by President Bush,”  -Donald Trump.


----------



## wamose (Apr 18, 2021)

For me, the Iraq War made as much sense as Fauci. None.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 18, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.
> ...



LMAO you know little to nothing. For example that after initially voting No on the war and discovering that was unpopular with the people Dems DEMANDED A 2ND VOTE so they could vote Yes for the war, own it Dem.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

.


struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


If there was no election fraud in FL, and an election steal by the conservative USSC, and if the real winner of the election- Al Gore were president, then there would not have been a war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq was a GOP plan. It was proposed by the GOP, it was pushed relentlessly by the GOP, and opposition to the war was called unpatriotic by the GOP.

Then the GOP failed and failed miserably in their war, and the GOP war in Iraq was one of the worst decision in US history.

“The worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country: going into the Middle East, by President Bush,” -Donald Trump.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

LA RAM FAN said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


If there was no election fraud in FL, and an election steal by the conservative USSC, and if the real winner of the election- Al Gore were president, then there would not have been a war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq was a GOP plan. It was proposed by the GOP, it was pushed relentlessly by the GOP, and opposition to the war was called unpatriotic by the GOP.

Then the GOP failed and failed miserably in their war, and the GOP war in Iraq was one of the worst decision in US history.

“The worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country: going into the Middle East, by President Bush,” -Donald Trump.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


If there was no election fraud in FL, and an election steal by the conservative USSC, and if the real winner of the election- Al Gore were president, then there would not have been a war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq was a GOP plan. It was proposed by the GOP, it was pushed relentlessly by the GOP, and opposition to the war was called unpatriotic by the GOP.

Then the GOP failed and failed miserably in their war, and the GOP war in Iraq was one of the worst decision in US history.

“The worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country: going into the Middle East, by President Bush,” -Donald Trump.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.


If there was no election fraud in FL, and an election steal by the conservative USSC, and if the real winner of the election- Al Gore were president, then there would not have been a war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq was a GOP plan. It was proposed by the GOP, it was pushed relentlessly by the GOP, and opposition to the war was called unpatriotic by the GOP.

Then the GOP failed and failed miserably in their war, and the GOP war in Iraq was one of the worst decision in US history.

“The worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country: going into the Middle East, by President Bush,” -Donald Trump.


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.


It's been an interesting metamorphosis. 

First, they were all for it.  USA!  USA!  Get Saddam 'cuz he's Al Qaeda 'n stuff!  WMD's I tell you!

Then, when it quickly went downhill, no WMD's were found, and it became a quagmire, they started blaming the Congress for approving the war, and pretended that THEY MADE Bush go to war.  Pure fantasy, but that was their story, and they stuck to it.

The minute Trump came down the escalator and talked about it, they became the doviest doves in the historical history of dovedom.  The very same people I was squabbling with, those who were all for the wars, were suddenly anti-war activists.

These people aren't to be taken seriously.  They're just led around by the nose.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 18, 2021)

beautress said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.
> ...



That thug needed to be taken out and we took him out. Funny but you don't hear any left winger bitch and complain about Obama taking out Kaddafi do you. The left are very selective in their faux rage.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 18, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.
> ...



What? Are you off your meds? Dems vote for these wars is a matter of public record so suck it.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



LMAO so only when a Dem loses is there election fraud, got it.


----------



## NoNukes (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


You are still wrong. And a lot of Dems were shamed into voting for it. That is what turned me against Hillary.


----------



## NoNukes (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


Vietnam was as big a mistake.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 18, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



By shamed into voting for it you mean Dems demanded the opportunity to vote Yes on the war, got it.   Unlike gutless coward Democrats I called BS on Bush and the Iraq war on this very board.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 18, 2021)

If we survive long enough to have a future, its teaching of history will be that the Iraq episode was one of the worst disasters the U.S. ever inflicted upon itself and the world. Some of us have always recognized it to be such. That is not a matter of being on one side or the other of today's fruitless binary buzz that passes for political discourse. The so-called Republicans and Democrats that supported it bear the onus of the crime.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 18, 2021)

[/QUOTE]
Vietnam was as big a mistake.
[/QUOTE]
In the dictionary, this is used as an example of understatement.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

.


BluesLegend said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


yea because of this little thing called evidence...


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



That's the gist of Operation Mass Appeal's efforts to demonize Iraq and sell the war. Clean Break Strategy of 1996 and the PNAC letter to Clinton called for the overthrow of Saddam and the isolation and destabilzation of Syria. Some idiots even promoted redrawing the border of the countries and the Scofield heretics were in lockstep with that.

Blood Borders: A Proposal To Redraw A “New Middle East ...








						Blood Borders: A Proposal To Redraw A “New Middle East”
					

Map created by Ralph Peters and originally published in the Armed Forces Journal, via wikimedia The map above is a 2006 proposed plan to redrawn the borders of the Middle East by Ralph Peters, a retired United States Army lieutenant colonel, author, and Fox News commentator. It was original...




					brilliantmaps.com
				




Jun 11, 2015 · Map created by Ralph Petersand originally published in the Armed Forces Journal, via wikimedia. The map above is a 2006 proposed plan to redrawn the borders of the Middle East by Ralph Peters, a retired United States Army lieutenant colonel, author,


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

no


----------



## theHawk (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


LOL, this is exactly what I am talking about.  Dems are so fucking stupid they think a Dem President wouldn’t start a new war to appease the Washington Establishment.  Obama got us into two regime change wars, Libya and Syria.  And now Xiden is lying about withdrawing from Afghanistan as the Pentagon admitted its keeping 18,000 contractors there indefinitely.  You really are a sucker.


----------



## easyt65 (Apr 18, 2021)

Did you support Barry's war?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> You are turning into being quite the liar.
> 
> No one on the right loved the war in Iraq.  No one on the right loves war.
> 
> ...


Bush and the neocons were openly all about nation building.

I told you Iraq was a big fat unforced error back in '02, and you know I did.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

theHawk said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Lest we forget that the democrats in the Senate (including Lurch Kerry and the Hildabeest) demanded another vote for war before the '02 midterms, so they could be on record of saying ME TOO!

The disingenuous leftist hacks in this thread are desperately trying to deflect from the fact that their team is as soaked in blood as  the neocon Bushbots are.


----------



## Lesh (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


Are you seriously comparing the fallout from Iraq to the fallout from Libya??


----------



## Flash (Apr 18, 2021)

Bush was a lot better President than that Gore dingaling or that Kerry traitor would have been but at the end of the day he was a Liberal RINO.

My son is an Iraq War combat veteran but  I have never understood why we invaded Iraq when they had nothing to do with 911.  Our war was to go after Bin Laden and not to remove Saddam from power.

However, I love to see the hypocrisy of the stupid Moon Bats that bitch about the Iraq War.  They voted for Gore, Kerry, Clinton and Joe Dufus who all supported the invasion of Iraq.

The idiots bitch about war but voted for the Worthless Negro that fought the war in Iraq for three years, bombed Libya that was no threat to the US and escalated the war in Afghanistan.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.
> ...


If it was all on the GOP, why didn't Bubba Clintoon end the sanctions and leave the area in the eight years available to him, and why did Senate democrats (i.e. Kerry & Clinton) demand a _*second *_war authorization vote in advance of the '02 elections?

Quit pretending that your team isn't soaked in Iraq blood, you disingenuous fraud.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

Lesh said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...


Are you seriously trying to sidestep the fact that your team is as equally big a mob of cro-magnon warmongers as are the neocons?


----------



## Lesh (Apr 18, 2021)

For those of you too stupid or too dishonest to remember or check history, Iraq was a Bush initiative. Pure and simple.

Dems were forced into defensive votes to approve something they could not stop. They were overwhelmingly for a cautious approach.

Those Dems who voted against it were almost universally voted out of office. Note Max Cleland (a war vet who lost multiple limbs in Vietnam) who was called a terrorist and voted out.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

theHawk said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



You people are a pathetic joke.
You can't take personal responsibility for anything in life, all you do is blame others.

The GOP war in Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes in US history and it was 100% GOP. Al Gore would have never gone to war in Iraq, the GOP has blood, and failure, on their hands.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


The GOP war in Iraq was one of the biggest fuck ups in US history.  The GOP dragged us into that war and then they fucked it up completely.

The GOP is the party of total failure and most of the countries problems are a result of GOP fuck ups.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...



The AntiWar left is forced to eat their own panties when a democrat is President.  Barack "I was at war longer than FDR" Obama is a perfect example


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

Lesh said:


> For those of you too stupid or too dishonest to remember or check history, Iraq was a Bush initiative. Pure and simple.
> 
> Dems were forced into defensive votes to approve something they could not stop. They were overwhelmingly for a cautious approach.
> 
> Those Dems who voted against it were almost universally voted out of office. Note Max Cleland (a war vet who lost multiple limbs in Vietnam) who was called a terrorist and voted out.


Exactly, they conviently forget these facts.

Thye GOP war in Iraq was pushed and pumped by the GOP, and all the Trumpers who now act like they opposed it all along.

This issue epitomizes the failed GOP, they are in an alternate reality.


----------



## Dana7360 (Apr 18, 2021)

gipper said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...





I know that the republicans have spent a lot of time revising history to fit their lies. 

They've been saying that most of the democrats voted for the Iraq war ever since the vote happened and it's nothing but a huge lie.

I never supported the Iraq war. I was called every name in the book by the republicans because I didn't support that war.

Now the same people who attacked me are saying they didn't support the war.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you too stupid or too dishonest to remember or check history, Iraq was a Bush initiative. Pure and simple.
> ...



Speaking of dishonest and stupid, it was the *DEMOCRAT* Bill Clinton, who not only didn't remove sanctions, "no fly zones", and and withdraw troops from the area, he launched more attacks on Iraq when he needed to get his zipper off the front page of newspapers.

It was *DEMOCRATS* who demanded a _*second*_ use of military force authorization in advance of the 2002 elections, so they could be seen as all aboard the impending failure..

But dishonest and stupid is your stock in trade, so we're used to it.

Alternate reality indeed.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you too stupid or too dishonest to remember or check history, Iraq was a Bush initiative. Pure and simple.
> ...


I never stopped calling them French fries...


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


Clinton had eight years to pull pull out and refused....Ditto Obama....

Fuck you, you dishonest, blood soaked, fucking hack.


----------



## Lesh (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


Ya know what Clinton did NOT do?

Yea...invade Iraq


----------



## theHawk (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


You are a joke.  More Dem senators voted for the war than against (28-21).  

And as I told idiots who voted for the Hussein, he wouldn’t end the wars, in fact he expanded them and started new wars.

You’re free to explain why the Hussein decided to declare regime change against countries that never attacked us and were no threat.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

Lesh said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


You know who voted to authorize invading Iraq in 2002?...Hildabeest Clinton.

You dishonest asswipes are up to your eyeballs in Iraq, and no amount if deflection and shifting the blame can change that.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...



Dems love to lie and re-write history. Remember Kerry was for the war before he was against it. Dems are such lowlife lying scum.


----------



## deannalw (Apr 18, 2021)

NotVote said:


> Fuck you in the nose asshole.




That's a hate crime...


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...



Stop lying, the Dems also supported the war, funded it, repeatedly.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 18, 2021)

theHawk said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Yeah but but but "D" so it's *D*ifferent.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


I was totally against it in both 1991 and 2002.....I don't need to change my story or remembrance of history.


----------



## deannalw (Apr 18, 2021)

Dana7360 said:


> Biden did vote for the Iraq war. Which is one of the reasons why he was my second to last choice for president.



You never had a choice.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I was one of the few who called total BS on Bush claim the Iraq war would only cost $74 billion and Iraq would pay us back. Utter nonsense. Meanwhile spineless Dems who change their position as often as the wind changes were all for going to war.


----------



## Lesh (Apr 18, 2021)

theHawk said:


> You are a joke. More Dem senators voted for the war than against (28-21).


Those votes were almost universally defensive votes...for something they had no ability to stop.

GOP votes by the way were almost lockstep in FAVOR


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

Lesh said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > You are a joke. More Dem senators voted for the war than against (28-21).
> ...


Irrelevant and lame deflection.

You team didn't only vote to authorize, they _*DEMANDED*_ a _*SECOND*_ vote for show.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 18, 2021)

Lesh said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > You are a joke. More Dem senators voted for the war than against (28-21).
> ...


More outright lies.  Republicans only had 48 votes.  It could not had passed without Dems support.  Their “opposition” to the war was merely a smear campaign against Republicans and Bush in hopes they would win the next election.  They knew they could just tell Dems any excuse for their votes and they would be gullible enough to believe and obey, and sure enough they were correct.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...



I wasn't a congressman at the time but I thought the war was misdirected. 15 out of 18 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian nationals. I'm not sure why we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. Just joking. I do know.  The war in Iraq was a symbolic gesture to the American people and not even a good one.

Saudi Arabia should have been torched to the ground. Afghanistan and Iraq were symbolic scape goats. Iraq was causing problems throughout the entire 90s but was pretty much tolerated. Why did it suddenly become a problem? Bush's ego or was it an opportunity to tie someone to 9/11?  It made no sense why Saddam's shenanigans didn't matter for almost 20years but suddenly became urgent.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

vasuderatorrent said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> ...


"Saddam's shenanigans" mattered enough that Bubba kept Bush 41's unilaterally enforced sanctions and "no fly zones" in  place for his eight years.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...



The Iraqi Air Force violated the no fly zone almost daily. This was exactly the behavior of Hitler. He signed treaties and ignored them. I'm not sure if you were trying to be funny.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...


How was it Murica's place to unilaterally impose any restrictions on the airspace of another sovereign nation?

In what way is that and the economic sanctions not defacto acts of an ongoing undeclared war?


----------



## Lesh (Apr 18, 2021)

theHawk said:


> Republicans only had 48 votes.


Actually they had 49 and 48 out of 49 GOP Senators voted for the war.

That's overwhelming

Throw in Max Baucus and Lieberman (conservadems) and no...the Dems could not stop it


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

Lesh said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans only had 48 votes.
> ...


Point is that the dems joined in, you fucking fraud.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 18, 2021)

Notice, the AntiWar Left is MIA whenever a Fascist democrat is President


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Throughout the 90s we essentially didn't.


----------



## EMH (Apr 18, 2021)

I left the GOP in 2004 because

1. It was perfectly clear the GOP had abandoned fiscal conservatism
2. The reasons given for invading Iraq were all lies.
3. The official explanation of 911 was clearly at odds with scientific reality
4. Then it came out that the W WH lied about the cost estimate of the socialization of senior drugs, which libertarians were vehemently opposed - the guy who did the cost estimate was told to "shut up or else"

It was clear theGOP under W was 180 degrees from the fiscally conservative patriotic toamerica GOP under HW.

Religion had replaced patriotism sanity and integrity.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


The GOP war in Iraq was one of the biggest fuck ups in US history.  The GOP dragged us into that war and then they fucked it up completely.

If you opposed the war you were labeled unpatriotic by you and Fox news, and Bill oriely, Hannity, all republicans.

You people try to act like you didn't do all the things you did and said in 2003...


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


Doubtful.
You are a sheep.
You follow lock step with whatever the GOP tells you.

Can you even admit Biden won and there was no fraud???


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

theHawk said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


It was still a GOP Bill and idea, put forward by the GOP, pumped by Bush, the GOP, and every Republican.

The Dems opposed it best they could, but any opposition to war was labeled unpatriotic by you and your kind.

Without the GOP there would be no war in Iraq.  If Gore were president there would be no war in Iraq.

You forget all the things you did and said in 2003...

The GOP war in Iraq was one of the biggest fuck ups in US history.  The GOP dragged us into that war and then they fucked it up completely.

If you opposed the war you were labeled unpatriotic by you and Fox news, and Bill oriely, Hannity, all republicans.


----------



## struth (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> .
> 
> 
> struth said:
> ...


The Clinton/Gore Admin signed the Iraq Liberation Bill, and it was their intel that said they were developing Nukes. 

Sad, however you still can't accept the fact Bush won.....the only fraud was the attempt by the Dems to violate the Constitutional rights of the people of FL...thankfully the Court 7-2 recognized that. 

The Iraq War was a success, even Obama acknowledge he was handed a free and stable Iraq....sad he handed it over to Iran and ISIS


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Every idiot Trumper out there tries to act like they opposed the war in Iraq, when every single one of them supported it in 2003.

And to think me and the Trumpers were hand in hand opposing the war in 2003 the whole time ! WHO KNEW !!!


----------



## deannalw (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...




You repeat your posts a lot.

Do you think that's cute or do you just run out of words all the time?


----------



## TheParser (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...



The war in Iraq was -- as the saying goes -- worse than a mistake, it was a blunder.

It opened up a can of worms, one being the elimination of Iraq as a buffer between Iran & the Arab nations.

If President George Walker Bush had been a person of character, he would have apologized and resigned.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

struth said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


I accept Bush's victory because at that point the election can't be reversed. But Bush didn't get more votes in FL, they just threw out a bunch of dem votes, or dems voted for Buchanan instead of Gore because they are old.  The true will of the people was Gore, but the election was given to Bush so it is what it is...

At least there is real evidence to support my claims, unlike Trump's fake claims of election fraud that have no evidence.

The GOP war in Iraq was one of the biggest fuck ups in US history.  The GOP dragged us into that war and then they fucked it up completely. It was a GOP bill, idea, and plan. Wighout the GOP there would be no war in Iraq.
If Gore were president there would be no war in iraq.

If you opposed the war you were labeled unpatriotic by you and Fox news, and Bill oriely, Hannity, all republicans.

You people try to act like you didn't do all the things you did and said...


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

deannalw said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Just smacking you liars up on the reg.

None of you can adress my issues. You people all repeat the same lies. Very few of you can admit the truth, that the War in Iraq was a GOP idea, bill, plan, move.

With out the GOP there would be no war in Iraq.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...




The ‘Clean Break’ Doctrine – OffGuardian








						The ‘Clean Break’ Doctrine
					

Cynthia Chung In 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then in his first te…




					off-guardian.org
				



May 20, 2020 · The ‘Clean Break’ Doctrine A Modern-Day Sykes-Picot Waging War and Havoc in the Middle EastEditor. The ‘Clean Break’ Doctrine. In 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then in his first term as Prime Minister of Israel, as a how-to manual on approaching regime …


----------



## struth (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


ahhaha yes he did....it was Gore and the Dems that were trying to NOT court certain mail in ballots, and recount....again...votes from a certain area, IN A DIFFERENT MANNER....in a clear violation of the Constitutional rights of the people of FL.  

The GOP, and the Dems voted for the war.   Bush was successful in the goals....Obama blew the recovery stage when he took office...that's clear and crystal. 

No need to try and rewrite it

You all are the ones that are now saying you were against it...when the voting record is there...for the world to see...and transcripts of speeches at that.  But ignoring reality and lying is what the Dems do, and their Dembot sheep eat it up


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Apr 18, 2021)

EMH said:


> the GOP had abandoned fiscal conservatism



Yep. Both parties use government as a financier to achieve their agenda. The problem with that is that the Republican agenda is exponentially more expensive than the Democratic agenda. In matters of fiscal policy the Democratic Party is less wrong. Fiscally conservative republicans deliberately ignore this reality and hold on to a brand name that they grew up with. I am a prime example. I didn’t leave the Republican Party until 2021. Fiscal issues are the most important issues to me.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

struth said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



For God's sake. Bush had already signed the SOFA and installed Iranian stooge Maliki. Bush claimed he was fighting Gog and Magog so you know how much religious training he had. They were fulfilling Clean Break Strategy. 

A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm ...








						A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm : Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
					

Formulated in 1996 for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Clean Break report, prepared by an Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political...



					archive.org
				



Formulated in 1996 for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Clean Break report, prepared by an Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) team headed by former Department of Defense senior official Richard Perle, has become known for its prescient statements regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent military interventions and civil wars in Libya and Syria.


----------



## struth (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


The only liars are the Dems suggesting they were against the Iraq War. Xiden was a huge cheer leader and had been for years leading up to it that we needed to overthrow Saddam.  

The Dems only flip flopped, and turned their backs on the troops and began their massive anti-Bush propaganda when they saw it was to their political advantage.....sadly for the world, some voters believed it, and Obama and Xiden were given power...which simply lead to mass chaos in the ME...and death around the globe due to the rise of ISIS


----------



## struth (Apr 18, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


Yeah years earlier...it was time to renew, and Obama failed....announced when he was leaving, but did acknowledge he was given a free and stable Iraq...sadly though without a little more of our support ISIS was able to fill the vaccum.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

struth said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > deannalw said:
> ...



We didn't need to overthrow Saddam. ISIS was born at Camp Brucca Prison in Iraq in 2004 and reconstituted  because Maliki abused the Sunni majority.


----------



## struth (Apr 18, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


Well...the law...passed by Congress, with bipartisan support and signed by Clinton, required us to.    

Yes, ISIS was a JV team then....but got massive power and filled the vaccum left after Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.  

The greatest foreign policy disaster of world history, with the largest consequences since the end of WW1, was Obama/Xiden mishandling of the Arab Spring


----------



## theHawk (Apr 18, 2021)

Lesh said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans only had 48 votes.
> ...


Then why did Dems vote for it 28-21?  That is overwhelming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 18, 2021)

Hard to tell when the ball gag is tighter on our Progressive cucked Moonbats: when a woman accuse a democrat of being a sexual predator or when a democrat President is starting another war


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Renew what? Maliki was installed and the SOFA was in place.


----------



## Utilitarian (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > Utilitarian said:
> ...


You forget that Lieberman was one of the most hawkish Democrats for his time.  We would have likely invaded Iraq under Gore just like with Bush, but the timing might have been different.  It's possible that the handling of the aftermath might have been different as well.

To say that PNAC was solely Republican ignores the many significant Democrats like Lieberman that were very pro-war.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

Utilitarian said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > LA RAM FAN said:
> ...




Douglas J. Feith | Clean Break Paper
www.dougfeith.com/cleanbreak.html
An Israeli think tank, The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), published "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" in 1996. It is a short paper - approximately 2800 words - that offered thoughts on Israeli and U.S. policies on national security and economics.


----------



## struth (Apr 18, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


The SOFA....the one you are talking about was created years prior.   They were attempting to work one out under Obama and Xiden to extend it....but they couldn't get the job done.

You think countries just make those things to last in perpetuity?  What country on Earth would want something like that??

I mean we have had one with Japan for over half a century, but that didn't keep Trump in 2017 from being able to renew it...as did other President....same with numerous other nations around the globe. 

The issue with Iraq was Obama was just a weak leader


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 18, 2021)

odanny said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


You need help with your memory then.

He said that Iraq and the butcher of Baghdad were sponsors of terror, which they were, to the tune of 100's of millions a year and several terrorist organizations.

Seek some help with your revisionist history.


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 18, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.
> ...


The Arabs started it.


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > You are turning into being quite the liar.
> ...


I told you back in 02 when we went in, that we should destroy their ability to make MWD, dispose of those the financed terror, break all the shit and leave.

If we had done that, we would have been fine.  

I still stand by that, regardless of what lies are told.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

wamose said:


> For me, the Iraq War made as much sense as Fauci. None.


Me and you both.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > Utilitarian said:
> ...


Give it up with your babble that the dems did not want Bush’s war as well,you keep making yourself look like an idiot,Gipper took you to school how they wanted it as much as him and thanks for proving Trump is not part of the corrupt gop Bush is.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


                  

yeah this troll won’t accept reality Obama had Kaddafi murdered because their country was off the federal reserve dollar.this troll and others on here as well don’t understand as Myself And Gipper I know for sure does as well,thst wars  are always started by the bankers to make money.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


        He keeps saying you are still wrong when you are only still,right.lol


----------



## EvMetro (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


I served in the sand, and I have been in the crosshairs of Muslims.  I guess you could say I supported it.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


Based on GOP Fox And internet insanity. Have you no shame after all? Lol poor America... At the time after a bunch of garbage propaganda, 80% of the country believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Absolute idiocy and garbage lies.... Stupidest war ever. Followed by the Afghanistan war which was totally ruined by running off that Iraq for no reason. Like everything else you want to do or believe there is no evidence just crap propaganda repeated endlessly by con men. Try journalism and reality. The GOP defense in court these days is that no reasonable person would believe any of their crap.... Another thing you know nothing about, you ridiculous ding bat doop.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> Bush was a lot better President than that Gore dingaling or that Kerry traitor would have been but at the end of the day he was a Liberal RINO.
> 
> My son is an Iraq War combat veteran but  I have never understood why we invaded Iraq when they had nothing to do with 911.  Our war was to go after Bin Laden and not to remove Saddam from power.
> 
> ...


That’s why Bush needs to be hung up by his balls for invading Iraq when they had nothing to do with 9/11,the corrupt  politicians in congress  as well for giving him approval to invade there.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


Clinton did it that way because he was intelligent and understood reality, not being a brainwashed functional moron war like George w Bush and the orange clown, not to mention crazy old Reagan Mr covert baloney and genocide. Your party is a disgrace and you only support them because you are totally brainwashed with b*******....


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

LA RAM FAN said:


> wamose said:
> 
> 
> > For me, the Iraq War made as much sense as Fauci. None.
> ...


You pathetic liar.
Everybody knows you supported the Iraq war, all you people supported the war.  You're a total sheep, you follow the party every step of the way. The party told you go to war in Iraq, and you went along with it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...



 Indeed,they need to get off the crack their smoking saying only when a Dem loses is there election fraud,thst is their fucked up logic they have ALWAYS.never fails.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

Utilitarian said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > LA RAM FAN said:
> ...


That just isn't a reality.
There was never a reason to go to war in Iraq. They might have gone to war in Afghanistan, but they would have won the war, unlike Bush and the GOP...

Gore would have never gone to war in Iraq, maybe you weren't paying attention back then, but the Iraq war was a GOP plan, bill, idea, fuck up.  They pushed this, and they pumped it. And they pumped it repeatedly.

I guess you don't mis-remember all the things you said and did in 2003.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > wamose said:
> ...


Whatever you say biased dem baby.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


This Langley shill same as the op indeed likes to sidestep reality.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 18, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


There is no election fraud, Brainwashed functional moron. Nobody is stupid enough to risk imprisonment for voting. Everything you know is incredibly stupid propaganda dumbass.... Rupert Murdock is scum and he is better than all your internet crazies. The only people in the entire world that believe your GOP garbage is other brain washed GOP base ignoramuses. In the entire world for crying out loud. Change the channel. Poor America


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


        As always the troll gets his ass handed to him on a platter. The dems as you said so well,DEMANDED  the war and funded it.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> Bush was a lot better President than that Gore dingaling or that Kerry traitor would have been but at the end of the day he was a Liberal RINO.
> 
> My son is an Iraq War combat veteran but  I have never understood why we invaded Iraq when they had nothing to do with 911.  Our war was to go after Bin Laden and not to remove Saddam from power.
> 
> ...


No Democrat would have supported it if they had known what Bush Cheney and the CIA really knew. Instead they got garbage propaganda in window has always the last 30 years from the scumbag lying GOP.

I am damn glad they followed France and Italy in attacking the scumbag terrorist tanks who were about to wipe out people who were for democracy. So are the people of Libya. Everything you know is garbage propaganda. You probably still think al-Qaida is running Libya or some other bologna from your propaganda machine, brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


 The fraud as always gets his ass handed to him on a platter from you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

deannalw said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


He must run out of words.lol


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 18, 2021)

No one in his right mind would have invaded Iraq because of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. No American in his right mind would attack a country that had not attacked the U.S. Anyone who had the slightest hint of knowledge of the foundations of this country would never think pre-emptive war were an option for out nation. It was a 'sin' against our forefathers, a 'sin' on the present, a 'sin' in international relations, a 'sin' in massively poor waste of American military might and, especially, its soldiers. It was and is totally reprehensible, indefensible, disgusting and a crime on so many levels that it puts the concept of justice in doubt.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 18, 2021)

LA RAM FAN said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


Because they were brainwashed functional morons just like you at the time. Now most people have figured out what lying scumbags the GOP and it's propaganda machine are. Only 25%, brainwashed functional rubes, still believe. The same idiots who may screw up the covid reaction so bad we may get a really dangerous variant out of your stupidity oops brainwashed functional stupidity. For America. Change the channel


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

struth said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > deannalw said:
> ...


 Banker as always gets taken to school and checkmated.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

Utilitarian said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > LA RAM FAN said:
> ...


       I hate to pull a Banker and repeat myself but you really did so much own his ass and hand it to him on a plaster so well taking him to school.


----------



## Rambunctious (Apr 18, 2021)

After 9-11 we didn't know what was going to happen next...we were told Hussein had chemical weapons and even dirty suitcase nukes....so many people did support the war until we saw that there wasn't any WMD's to speak of...the CIA wanted Bush to invade Iraq for whatever reason.....and they lied to get his dumb ass to do it.....the question is why?...was the CIA trying to bring Bush's poll numbers down by getting him in over his head?....was the CIA and FBI just a part of the democrat party back then like they obviously are today?....


----------



## Flash (Apr 18, 2021)

LA RAM FAN said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Bush was a lot better President than that Gore dingaling or that Kerry traitor would have been but at the end of the day he was a Liberal RINO.
> ...




The stupid Moon Bats sure as hell didn't hold Kerry, Clinton or Joe Dufus accountable for voting to fund the invasion, do they?

I don't consider myself a Republican anymore.  One of the reason is because Bush was a Liberal and the Republican mainstream went along with him.  The Iraqi War was one of the most despicable things ever done by an American President.

When are the Moon Bats going to hold the Democrats accountable for being despicable?  I heard them bitch about the Iraq War but they still voted for Clinton and Joe Dufus, who both supported the war.  They had no problem with the Worthless Negro appointing John "Traitor" Kerry to being Secretary of State and he supported the invasion.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


Your team helped greatly to drag us there too...And you've kept the full funding of it rolling in ever since, you dishonest asshole.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


That was never ever going to happen, and you knew it.....Bush, PNAC, and the rest of the neocon glee club went there to nation build.


----------



## Flash (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




Clinton, Kerry and Joe Dufus all supported the invasion of Iraq.  You weren't one of these morons that voted for any of them, are you?


----------



## Utilitarian (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


The Clintons and Lieberman pushed for entering Iraq in the late 90s.  The idea didn't get much traction until the neocons took hold of the GOP.  That doesn't suddenly make the pro-war Democrats disappear.  Lieberman was just as onboard with invading Iraq as Bush was, and it caused some conflict within his party as a result.  It was part of why he ended up becoming an independent in the 2000s.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


I been telling you forever it’s a corrupt one party system designed to look like two so the sheep think they have a choice in who gets elected,Trump thankfully is a Rino not part of the corrupt two party system,he is not the norm that you see in the gop party thst are globalists same as the dems,he is not in the same club that the globalist republicans of the Bush’s,Romney’s,and Graham’s are and McCain when he was here who are all in bed with the terrorist dems.

Abbot of Texas is a globalist as well in bed with them,don’t be fooled by his anti illegals show with Biden,it’s all a show,he is really letting illegals INTO Texas.It’s all a show to try and save face with Texans cause he did not lift a finger to help them when the bad winter hit and many lost their power,he is murderer,the elite would love to have him as a president or vp.

anyways the Bush’s are evil monsters.they are mass murderers and Obama and Clinton,both mass murderers also,are his pals.The Bush’ have long standing ties to the CIA,Bush Seniors father had a long history with the CIA dating back to the OSS which was the precursor to the CIA and he of course was the former director of the CIA as well.Clinton has been long time best of buddies with the Bush’s with a friendship that goes way back to st least the early 80,s when he was attorney general of arkansaw and then governor.Him and Obama as well both have deep ties to the CIA also.

surely you have heard of the mena Arkansas scandal? Thst was a CIA drug smuggling operation that Bush ran in the 80S where the CIAsmuggled arms to the nicuruguans  in exchange for drugs that were flown into America with flights coming into the Mena Arkansas airport under the watchful eye of Bill Clinton.  Obama is like a 12th cousinof Bush’s second removed so that should be no surprise to you that he has CIA connections as well. Bush and Clinton were spotted many times while Clinton was potus golfing together and canoeing and hanging out on the front lawn of the White House yucking it up. They might not be there anymore the way youtube deleted videos but there used to at least be videos of Clinton and bush sr hanging out together all the time golfing with each other as did Obama with them.Bush sr and Clinton even spoke about it how they have been long time pals on YouTube videos.Barbara Bush even publicicly said clinton is like a second son to her. All three bush sr,Clinton and Obama have all said we need to have a new world order and bush jr,Clinton and Obama have all been seen golfing together as well im sure you are aware of?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Nope.....Swore off republicans after they sold us all out in'95.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Banker baby does not get it that Trump is a Rino,not a globalist as the Bush’s,Romney,Abbot,and Graham’s are,thst they are in bed  with lying Biden or my last long post,all thst stuff goes through one ear and out the other with him.  He refuses to unlearn what he has learned.


----------



## Flash (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




You know these Moon Bats love to bitch about Bush and Trump but give the Democrats a pass for doing the exact same thing.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...





Flash said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



Trump also supported the war on Iraq.. Remember his appearance on Howard Stern? Its on video. Didn't you vote for him?


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

Rambunctious said:


> After 9-11 we didn't know what was going to happen next...we were told Hussein had chemical weapons and even dirty suitcase nukes....so many people did support the war until we saw that there wasn't any WMD's to speak of...the CIA wanted Bush to invade Iraq for whatever reason.....and they lied to get his dumb ass to do it.....the question is why?...was the CIA trying to bring Bush's poll numbers down by getting him in over his head?....was the CIA and FBI just a part of the democrat party back then like they obviously are today?....



You didn't know what was going on? 

Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. Bush and Cheney were telling the lamest lies. My favorite was that Saddam was trucking his WMDs back and forth between Sudan and Syria.


----------



## Flash (Apr 18, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




Actually in 2016 I did not vote for Trump because I perceived him to be a New York Liberal.  I wrote in Ron Paul.

Did you vote for Clinton or Joe Dufus?  How about Traitor Kerry?  All three of them joined with Bush to support the invasion of Iraq.  If you did you are a moron.

Did you vote for Worthless Negro who fought the war in Iraq for thee years, bombed Libya for no damn reason and escalated the war in Afghanistan?  If you did you are a moron.


----------



## EMH (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...




The "GOP war" 

Lol

Dems lie al the time.

Schumer
Feinstein
Waxman


The GOP at the time had some non-Zionists like chuck Hagel and rand Paul who opposed it.  Gen Schwarzkopf opposed it.  HW opposed it.

All the leftist media - CNN, NPR - they were all for it.

The completely treasonous decision to lie and sell out our troops in Iraq was 100 percent correlated with Zionism, not party.


----------



## JLW (Apr 18, 2021)

I love how these conservative Trumpist idiots are engaging in this historical revisionism. Anyone who was around then whose brain has not  turned to mush will remember will remember the right-wing smear machine going after anyone who did not support the Iraqi war as supporting Saddam. The lead cheerleader of this smear machine was none other than Sean Hannity.

Scott Ritter, the UN , our allies, and all those that said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were ridiculed. In Bush/Cheney lingo, ”You were either against us, or for us.” No middle ground.

Nearly all Republicans fell in line. Some Democrats surrendered to the smear machine, most notably Hillary Clinton. She paid the price in 2008 and 2016 for her vote.

The votes in the Senate and House was as follows:










The Iraq War was a Republican initiative from the start.

What makes this laughable are all these Pubs now saying they were against this war. Now that is hilarious.  Every single Pub on this board,  if they were honest, would say they supported it.

I remember the heated debates I had with Pubs when I told them they were being led like sheep by Bush’s lies and misinformation.

Like sheep

Just like today.

*Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose*


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 18, 2021)

struth said:


> hahahha what BS....they voted to authorize the us of military force in Iraq...there was NOT one stipulation about going to the UN....not that it would ever be necessary...but in fact one of the main factors was the fact they voted to liberate Iraq, a few years earlier during the Clinton admin



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.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining super power.  The UN did not authorize the use of military force by any member state to invade Iraq.









						Text - H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
					

Text for H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002



					www.congress.gov


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 18, 2021)

Rambunctious said:


> After 9-11 we didn't know what was going to happen next...we were told Hussein had chemical weapons and even dirty suitcase nukes....so many people did support the war until we saw that there wasn't any WMD's to speak of...the CIA wanted Bush to invade Iraq for whatever reason.....and they lied to get his dumb ass to do it.....the question is why?...was the CIA trying to bring Bush's poll numbers down by getting him in over his head?....was the CIA and FBI just a part of the democrat party back then like they obviously are today?....


I see your problem, brainwashed functional moron. The CIA the FBI and judges are still in the real world even if they are Republicans. Only you ignoramuses in the base who can't listen to anything but Fox News and worse believe in your ridiculous conspiracy theories and phony scandals. Change the channel stupid.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

.


Johnlaw said:


> I love how these conservatives Trumpist idiots are engaging in this historical revisionism. Anyone who was around then whose brain has not  turned to mush will remember will remember the right-wing smear machine going after anyone who did not support the Iraqi war as supporting Saddam. The lead cheerleader of this smear machine was none other than Sean Hannity.
> 
> Scott Ritter, the UN , our allies, and all those that said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were ridiculed. In Bush/Cheney lingo, ”You were either against us, or for us.” No middle ground.
> 
> ...


It is absolutely laughable.

The GOP is a total joke.
We we're hand in hand in opposition to the war in Iraq with these Trumpers...

"You're Either With US, or Against US"
"We Will be Greeted as Liberators!"
"You have to support freedom"
"Mission Accomplished"

These Trumpers need to re-write history.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 18, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> we should destroy their ability to make MWD, dispose of those the financed terror, break all the shit and leave.



Should we punish those responsible for selling Iraq the technology, equipment and supplies to make the WMD?


----------



## struth (Apr 18, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


i did.  Although he didn’t give a full throated backing like xiden, clinton, chucky and nancy


----------



## struth (Apr 18, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > hahahha what BS....they voted to authorize the us of military force in Iraq...there was NOT one stipulation about going to the UN....not that it would ever be necessary...but in fact one of the main factors was the fact they voted to liberate Iraq, a few years earlier during the Clinton admin
> ...


yeah i provided the link...we didn’t need the UN.  He got congress though 

He enforced UN resolutions...that the UN wasn’t.  Of course they were a threat...read the entire resolution Xiden and company outlines all the threats


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> .
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> ...


And a strong contingent of the warmongering ghouls you assholes support went right along with them....Phony fucks.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


Your argument is that you blame the Dems for not stopping the idiot retard republicans??

It's all the dems fault because they should have done more to stop the republicans...  It was all the GOP plan.  This is what the GOP pushed for, war in Iraq.

To some how blame the Dems for not stopping the idiot GOP and their idiot plan to go to war in Iraq is laughable.  

This is where the GOP is at, blame the Dems for not stopping the GOP failure machine, but don't blame the idiot retard republicans whose idea it was to go to war in Iraq, and who subsequently fucked up the war something fierce...
GOP logic right there... pathetic.


----------



## JLW (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


Pubs have no logic. They created this Iraqi mess now want to blame everyone but themselves for the resulting  fiasco.


----------



## surada (Apr 18, 2021)

beautress said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...




Bush told French President Chirac he was fighting Gog and Magog.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

FREEDOM FRIES !!

The party of snappy one-liners used to brainwash it's sheep supporters had to change the french fries to Freedom Fries because France opposed the war in Iraq.

remember the hatred towards france by the Idiot GOP because France tried to stop Idiot Bush and the idiot GOP form going to war in Iraq???

Freedom Fries, but but but it was all the dems fault.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.


You have a bad memory, first off.
And using divisive language like this still
doesn't exactly fit the image of a banker. More like a bankers' spoiled, arrogant rich kid.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

Angelo said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> ...


Says the people that voted to call French fries "Freedom Fries" because France opposed the war in Iraq...

It's like you forget all the thing you did and said in 2003.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


My argument is that you are every bit as retarded as the neocons....You morons are even carrying their water today.

You suck  as badly as the Bushbots, because you are one of them.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 18, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



But he did need the UN or don't you remember him asking the UN for help when the occupation went FUBAR?  Don't you remember it was the UN that forced Bush to negotiate the SOFA and withdrawal of 2008?

They were no threat.  SCR 1441 superseded all other Iraqi resolutions and the invasion hinged on the final round of weapons inspections.  Until Bush decided to invade.  It wasn't Clinton who decided. It wasn't Biden who made that decision or anyone else not president Bush.  He was given the power to decide and he did.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Yet Bush was a total failure and Clinton and now Biden were/are huge sucesses.

Your argument is partisan stupidty with no factual basis.

You supported the War in Iraq. None of you opposed it. You people started calling french fries freedom fries because France opposed the war.
Anything that opposed the war was deemed a traitor to America by you and your kind.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


I didn't support the 1991 war, let alone any of the subsequent neocon foolishness, pinhead.

Meanwhile, you and your moonbat teammates have been licking the boots of neocon stooges like McCain, Cheney, Romney, Ryan and many many more.

Congratulations, sanctimonious asshole, you've become what you've claimed to hate.


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 18, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > we should destroy their ability to make MWD, dispose of those the financed terror, break all the shit and leave.
> ...


has nothing to do with what I said.  I'll make note of your deflection.


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 18, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > hahahha what BS....they voted to authorize the us of military force in Iraq...there was NOT one stipulation about going to the UN....not that it would ever be necessary...but in fact one of the main factors was the fact they voted to liberate Iraq, a few years earlier during the Clinton admin
> ...


We have never, nor do we need to now, have the permission of the UN to do anything.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 18, 2021)

I was very doubtful before I realized that the US was withdrawing from war crimes treaties in 2002, and from that point opposed the build up, the war, and the peace failure.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 18, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



It was one of the conditions for the Determination Power Congress was abdicating to the President.

What was GW announcing when he was greeted at the press conference with a couple of shoes?

Could it have been that SOFA that the UN forced him into negotiating with the Iraqis?


----------



## The Banker (Apr 18, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Keep dreaming we all know all you people all supported that war through and through.  Your new anti war hippie stance is so enlightening...  (sigh)


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


NO IT WASN"T....there was no condition to get UN approval first...stop lying...I and you yourself posted a link to the Authorization and nowhere is that a condition

The journalist (got three years by the way) threw the shoes in 2008 at Bush during a Press Confernce.  The journalist was upset that Obama and won, and Bush left the country with Obama and Xiden....


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


No he didn't....he certainly made this case to them...and wanted a vote...but didn't need it. 

The Iraq War was a success, before Obama took office...even Obama admitted his was left a free and stable Iraq. 

We didn't withdraw in 2008

Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections and repeated violated UN resolutions, as well as attempted to assassinate our President, among other things listed in the resolution.  You are either lying, repeating lies, or uninformed...I am guessing all three


----------



## EMH (Apr 19, 2021)

Johnlaw said:


> I love how these conservative Trumpist idiots are engaging in this historical revisionism. Anyone who was around then whose brain has not  turned to mush will remember will remember the right-wing smear machine going after anyone who did not support the Iraqi war as supporting Saddam. The lead cheerleader of this smear machine was none other than Sean Hannity.
> 
> Scott Ritter, the UN , our allies, and all those that said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were ridiculed. In Bush/Cheney lingo, ”You were either against us, or for us.” No middle ground.
> 
> ...




What did bill clinton mean when he campaigned on the theme that HW "didn't finish the job in Iraq?"  Why did all the zionist media, almost all of them leftist and Dem, support Clinton, believing president Clinton would invade Iraq as he was promising that on the campaign trail?

As for Trump, he admitted he was conned by W's lies and that Iraq was a huge error.   Trump was pulling troops out of the ME.

Anyone opposed to endlessly selling out our troops in the Middle East over lies solely to benefit Israel needed only an IQ over5 to figure out that Trump was 100 percent better on this issue for America than Traitor Joe, who not only supported all of W's treason, but knew about 911 before and invested off 911, making tens of millions as the Towers burned.

Who was W for in this election?

BIDEN


To believe the left wing liais on this board, you need to have an IQ low enough to still fall for the official version of 911, Michelle being a woman, and Biden not being one of the worst Zionist warmongers despite all his votes....


"Have US based Mossad agents take out a President deemed unfriendly to Israel - homO - so that the current VP could forcefully dictate US foreign policy to help the Jewish state obliterate its enemies"

That is what you voted for when you voted for Traitor Joe.


----------



## EMH (Apr 19, 2021)

Indeed, the Steal was 100 percent about shutting off DOJ from bringing out 911 charges.

All of the Zionist 911 traitors were for Joe.

Voting for Joe was voting to let Israel get away with 911 and much more, and to sellout our troops again,this time in Iran.

To not understand that  truth is to confess to having an IQ under 5.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

"

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

*And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too*.

....

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." Bill Clinton - 1998 




__





						Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998
					





					www.cnn.com


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

EMH said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > I love how these conservative Trumpist idiots are engaging in this historical revisionism. Anyone who was around then whose brain has not  turned to mush will remember will remember the right-wing smear machine going after anyone who did not support the Iraqi war as supporting Saddam. The lead cheerleader of this smear machine was none other than Sean Hannity.
> ...



Clinton never campaigned on claiming HW Bush didn't finish the job. In fact Bill Clinton wasn't railroaded into attacking Iraq by the dual signatories of the PNAC.


----------



## EMH (Apr 19, 2021)

LOL

Clinton ran TV ads with that quote...

Accused HW of "coddling"Saddam...


YOU LIE


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Not if Iraq proved to be a threat, but UNSC resolutions to invade and occupy Iraq were def. addressed, and could have been used as of one of the conditions.  He didn't get one for the invasion, but he got one for the occupation.  Which the UN revoked.  It ended the last day of 2008.

The question was what was President Bush announcing that day, not why he was greeted with flying shoes.


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

EMH said:


> LOL
> 
> Clinton ran TV ads with that quote...
> 
> ...



Clinton wasn't running for office in Feb 1998.


Project for a New American Century (PNAC) - We Hold These ...








						Project for a New American Century (PNAC) - We Hold These Truths
					

Project for a New American Century (PNAC) A […]




					whtt.org
				



In 1998 “The Project for the New American Century” letter (PNAC Letter) was sent to President Bill Clinton. The letter urged Clinton to target the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power in Iraq due to erosion of the Gulf War Coalition’


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

The PNAC letter to Clinton in Jan 1998 was based entirely on Bibi Netanyahu's Clean Break Strategy from 1996.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


He didn't need UN approval to invade..he had the US Congressional approval.  

We did not leave Iraq in 2008....

It was at a Press Conf.  He was answering questions


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



We agreed to 1441 which require another resolution to authorize military action.  But like you said he didn't really need it because we are the most powerful military and we can veto any SC resolution condemning us.  But after we won, and the Occupation went sideways, he asked the UN for a mandate for the occupation and got it.  That mandate expired in 2008.  Which is why GW had to negotiate with the Iraqis for a SOFA.  The Iraqis demanded a complete US withdrawal before 2012.  GW signed that agreement at in 2008. 

It's was a strategist blunder and the region is still in flux.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



"Bush’s fleeting visit to Baghdad was aimed at marking the recent passage of a U.S.-Iraq security pact that paves the way for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraqi cities by July next year and withdraw completely by the end of 2011." 









						Bush on farewell visit to Iraq dodges flying shoes
					

An Iraqi reporter called President George W. Bush a "dog" and threw his shoes at him on Sunday, sullying a farewell visit to Baghdad meant to mark greater security in Iraq after years of bloodshed.




					www.reuters.com
				




I thought it was great the way he adeptly ducked the flying shoes.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Sorry there was nothing in the Congressional Authorization of Force that required us to get any sort of UN agreement. Stop lying. 

The Iraq War was a success...Bush left Obama with a free and stable Iraq....Obama and Xiden's foreign policy blunder was unable to extend our SOFA, and then announced when we'd be leaving...which created a power vaccum and a date for ISIS and Iran to pick apart the newly formed Govt.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Yep...what's your point?  And Obama and Xiden where handed a free and stable Iraq, but failed to extend in SOFA...thus leaving the door open for ISIS and Iran to pick apart the newly formed Govt...


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Iraq wasn't free and stable at all. They couldn't even control the highway from Baghdad to the airport. I stopped counting at 600 acts of sabotage in the pipelines and oil facilities ... and ISIS was boiling up out the abuse of Iranian Maliki.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> The Iraq War was a success...Bush left Obama with a free and stable Iraq..



Except for all those combat troops President Bush still had deployed when he left office!



struth said:


> .Obama and Xiden's foreign policy blunder was unable to extend our SOFA, and then announced when we'd be leaving



The withdrawal date was set by President Bush not President Obama.  But fact of the matter is no president would leave out troops subject to the laws of Iraq.

It was a blunder, and not only launched a Civil War in Iraq, but also sparked a regional conflict that is realigning the balance of power in the region.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Obama said it was...he admitted that was what he was handed. "  But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people."  Obama Remarks by the President and First Lady on the End of the War in Iraq

ISIS didn't care who was President of Iraq....they wanted a caliphate.....and got one, thanks to Obama and Xiden's failed foreign policies


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraq War was a success...Bush left Obama with a free and stable Iraq..
> ...


Of course they were there to make sure the Govt had a chance to take hold and grow...Obama and Xiden had a great opportunity and blew it, which created more chaos in the ME...and death.

The SOFA agreement date had an end...such..like every other one in the world we have...Obama and Xiden failed to extend it. 

I agree with you about the consequences of the Obama/Xiden blunder....


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Iran is mostly Shiite and ISIS is mostly Sunnis.  The Iraqis government was already aligned with Iran.


struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Yep the Iraqis Shiite majority played nice and promised to continue to play nice with the Sunni minority but guess what?  They didn't.  Obama was forced to confront them when they attacked the oil hub of Erbil.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


hahhaha Obama bailed on a "Free and Stable" Iraq...and allowed his JV team to form a bloody, deadly, and horrible calipiate


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Why was it that President Bush was unable to secure a long term agreement with the Iraqis?  His team had over a year to get it done.  Wasn't there a sticking point that the Iraqis wouldn't budge on?

The blunder was the invasion itself not removing our troops on Bushes time frame.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Obama's coalition was able to deny ISIS it's Caliphake without reinvading the region with US combat troops.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


The same reason every other President hasn't with every other nation we have a military force.  No country wants us there in perpetuity.  They want dates to review the agreement.  

Geez....get a clue.  Obama failed to get it renewed...gave ISIS and other terrorist are move out date...and chaos unfolded...and Obama had to send our troops right back, in a much more deadly enviroment.  Xiden of course, didn't learn from this and is about to do the same in Afgan.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Huh?  they had a caliphate and we did have to go back in...what in the world are you talking about?


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



So instead of getting a Review of the agreement date in the SOFA, President Bush opted for a Withdrawal date instead?

But in reality both Presidents faced the same opposition from the Iraqis on our troops and no president would have agreed to their terms.


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



The Arabs don't want another Caliphate.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



They occupied some territory.  We provided air support and advisors, no Grunts.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


the date was to withdraw, or renew...depending on the circumstances.  Don't play dumb.   Deflecting failure is the liberal way I get it, but the ball was dropped by Obama and Xiden...which had major consequences because it lead to the complete botch of the Arab Spring....the Syrian Civil War, ISIS, and a empowered Iran (the largest state sponsor of terror), and the Yemen crisis. 

Thanks to the horrible blunders of Obama and Xiden


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Well yeah...most sane ones don't....Obama left them a bloody group of horrible terror...slavery, rapes etc...it was horror


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



ISIS was born in Camp Brucca Prison in 2004. It was called "the finishing school for radicals". There was a lull, but Maliki absolutely abused the Sunni majority.. He was a Shia who had lived most of his life in Iran. Odd choice for a president who claimed to be an oil man.

Did you want Obama to reinvade Iraq and depose Maliki?


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Yes it had a massive terroritory....from Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen...across the ME.

And what planet do you live on?  We sent troops back...all over the ME to deal with it
More


			https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/07/politics/obama-sends-troops-to-iraq
		

and more: U.S. to Send 600 More Troops to Iraq to Help Retake Mosul From ISIS (Published 2016)
and more: Obama orders more troops to Iraq to guide fightback against Islamic State

I could go on....ISIS's caliphate didn't end until Trump took office in 2019


			https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/23/middleeast/end-of-isis-caliphate-intl


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



The Arab Spring in Syria began in 2005.. What are YOU talking about?


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Why did he have to reinvade when we were already there providing support?   He could have just stayed...instead he left...

and yes....reinvaded...he sent troops back in after that, after ISIS created it's caliphate


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...











						Arab Spring - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




" The *Arab Spring* (Arabic: الربيع العربي‎) was a series of anti-government protests, uprisings, and armed rebellions that spread across much of the Arab world in the early 2010s "


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



There was not option for renegotiation based on circumstances in the SOFA.  The Iraqis had the option to ask us to leave at any time and we also had the option to leave at any time.



			https://www.dcaf.ch/sites/default/files/publications/documents/US-Iraqi_SOFA-en.pdf


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Sure there was...we were there attempting to do just that!  









						Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay (Published 2011)
					

American officials blamed a misreading of Iraqi politics for the failure of negotiations on extending the presence of troops.




					www.nytimes.com
				












						How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations
					

The Obama administration is claiming it always intended to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year, in line with the…




					foreignpolicy.com
				






*THE CABLE*
*How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations*
*The Obama administration is claiming it always intended to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year, in line with the president’s announcement today, but in fact several parts of the administration appeared to try hard to negotiate a deal for thousands of troops to remain — and failed. “I can ...*


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



From 2005 to 2011 when Assad arrested the schoolboys Syria had severe drought, abandoned farms, inflation, unemployment, civil strife and the collapse of agriculture and their tiny oil sector... plus overpopulation.

Neither Russia nor Iran lifted a finger to help them. The Alawites are above the law.. Drug smuggling and kidnapping for ransom were the norm.. Since 1950 Syria has been the country of assassinations .


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Massive amounts of sand.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Cool story...yeah Russia didn't get involved until after Obama and Xiden f-ed up the Arab Spring and Assad started using WMDs on his own people...then Obama and Xiden thought invited their pal Putin in....you know to take care of those WMDs...great job


----------



## ESay (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> Cool story...yeah Russia didn't get involved until after Obama and Xiden f-ed up the Arab Spring and Assad started using WMDs on his own people...then Obama and Xiden thought invited their pal Putin in....you know to take care of those WMDs...great job


Russia got involved when the territory under Assad's control began to shrink steadily and inevitably for the regime. The Assad regime was expected to last for weeks, not even months.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

ESay said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Cool story...yeah Russia didn't get involved until after Obama and Xiden f-ed up the Arab Spring and Assad started using WMDs on his own people...then Obama and Xiden thought invited their pal Putin in....you know to take care of those WMDs...great job
> ...











						Red Line Redux: How Putin Tore Up Obama’s 2013 Syria Deal
					

The so-called “red line” episode in September 2013, when, in a last-minute decision, President Barack Obama called off U.S. air strikes in Syria, has




					tcf.org
				




Nah, Russia was invited in, in 2013 after Obama red line mishap...

" The so-called “red line” episode in September 2013, when, in a last-minute decision, President Barack Obama called off U.S. air strikes in Syria,1 has continued to shape his legacy. Instead of striking the Syrian government in retaliation for a nerve gas attack near Damascus, Obama took Russian President Vladimir Putin up on an offer to peacefully dismantle the Syrian chemical weapons program and craft a United Nations resolution2 to make sure no gas attacks ever occurred in Syria again. "

" _Within an hour, an hour and a half, I got a phone call from Sergei Lavrov of Russia suggesting that was a really good idea, why don’t we work on whether or not we could do that? And President Obama and President Putin had actually talked about it a few weeks earlier in St. Petersburg, and I’d already talked to Lavrov—I’d actually talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu about it, who thought it was a good idea. And so all of a sudden, Lavrov and I were thrown together by our presidents in an effort to try to achieve that. And guess what? We did achieve it before Congress voted.20_ "  - John Kerry









						U.S., Russia agree on Syria weapons, Obama says force still option
					

Russia and the United States put aside bitter differences over Syria to strike a deal on Saturday that by removing President Bashar al-Assad's chemical arsenal may avert U.S. military action against him.




					www.reuters.com
				












						Putin Scores on Syria
					

Despite giving Obama and the United States a “get out of jail free card” at home, most observers agree that, on points, Putin is the real winner of this particular round of the Syrian conflict. The question now is whether the United States and its allies can out-maneuver Putin to regain the...




					www.foreignaffairs.com


----------



## ESay (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Russian direct military involvement in Syria began in the second half of 2015.








						Russian military intervention in the Syrian civil war - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 19, 2021)

I don't believe these rightwingers and Republicans who are *currently* pretending that they weren't for that blasted war. That *COLOSSAL* failure that Bush's *GOP* lied the country into.

Every GD *Republican* was for it. They *canceled* any and everyone who publicly stated otherwise. Just axe The Dixie Chicks.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

ESay said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > ESay said:
> ...


Cool, but as I highlighted they were already involved in Syria years prior due to Obama's invite.


----------



## ESay (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Yes, it seems we are talking about a bit different things. You were talking about 'diplomatical' involvement, while I was about military.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

ESay said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > ESay said:
> ...


Yes, Assad asked for Putin to help him, after he was already working with Putin to "remove" those WMDs...after Obama's invite. 

Odd, how they continued to use WMDs after that invite


----------



## The Banker (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


The funniest thing about your kind is you reach and stretch to find something to use against Obama, crying like a bitch over small mistakes.
THEN,
You completyely ignore the clusterfuck of failure known as the GOP.  Bush and the GOP are the reason we went into Iraq, it was their stupid plan, and their idea.
Bush and the GOP fucked up the war. Smart people could have won that war, not Bush... Not Republicans...
Then your boy crashed the economy and turned a balanced budget and projected surplus into economic ruin through numerous policy mistakes.
Then your boy Trump fucked up covid something fierce and incited an insurrection based on lies...

So you pathetic failures have nothing to cry about.  The GOP has been a complete and total failure for the entire 21st century.


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Oh BS... Assad dropped 4-5,000 barrel bombs on civilians... or rather his brother Mehr did. He controls the military, the police and Bashar. Why do you think six million Syrians fled the country.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > ESay said:
> ...


What's BS?  Oh his brother acted unilaterally without the Dictator's permission?  Really?  

Wow...defending a murderous Dictator that gassed his own people...


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

The Banker said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


How can you say ISIS, Syrian Crisis, Yemen, and a empowered Iran is a "small mistake?"

Bush left Obama a free and stable Iraq....and by the time Obama and XIden left office we had the worse refugee crisis the world has seen since WW2.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Yes it was all Obama's fault, Bush did nothing wrong and gave Obama a gem...

Any mistake any dem has ever made pales in comparison to the epic fuck ups of Bush and Trump.

I guess it is just easier for you to live a lie.


----------



## struth (Apr 19, 2021)

The Banker said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


According to Obama...yes. 

Sorry...that's not even close to being true.  Double digit UE, the largest refugee crisis since WW2, ISIS, and now a humanitarian crisis on our own border....thank a Dem


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



If Bashar steps down Mehr will kill him. Don't you know anything about Syria?


----------



## Rocko (Apr 19, 2021)

We don’t know what would have been had we not gone into Iraq, but for argument sake let’s agree with premise that going to war with Iraq was a bad idea and you were right to be against it. It doesn’t mean you’re good at foreign policy, it just means you were right? granted high stakes right, but Hussein Obozo didn’t want to go to war with Iran and proved to be an idiot on foreign policy.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 19, 2021)

struth said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Double digit UE???  you mean what Obama inherited from the Bush after he crashed the economy??  After Bush inherited balanced budgets??  Then Obama got UE down under 5%.  How'd Trump end up... Oh yeah he lost millions of jobs because he mis-managed covid...

All the problems in the mid east stem from Bush and the GOP's fuck up.

The majority of America's problems are from GOP fuck ups from Bush and trump. two failed presidents.


----------



## surada (Apr 19, 2021)

Rocko said:


> We don’t know what would have been had we not gone into Iraq, but for argument sake let’s agree with premise that going to war with Iraq was a bad idea and you were right to be against it. It doesn’t mean you’re good at foreign policy, it just means you were right? granted high stakes right, but Hussein Obozo didn’t want to go to war with Iran and proved to be an idiot on foreign policy.



Obama knew more about foreign affairs than Trump or Bush... and neither Trump nor Bush listened to people with ME experience. They didn't listen to diplomats, historians, oilmen , the Arabs or the French who always have superior intelligence on the ME.. Always have.

They didn't listen to Americans who have 40-50 years experience in the region.


----------



## EMH (Apr 19, 2021)

Bill Clinton ran on

HW didn't finish the job in Iraq

In 1992, because in 1992 the presidential election was between HW and Bill Clinton.


Duh....


For many of the sub 20 IQ types here, there is a 

Blurring

Of HW and W, of desert storm andiraqi freedom...


Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 that, as president, he would have the us invade and occupy Iraq.

He lied

That is why dick Morris switched parties, because the only country dick Morris ever cared about was Israel.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2021)

Flash said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


This stupid fuck banker is such a Moron he lumps Non globalist trump in there with globalist Bush when anybody with a brain knows globalists Obama and Bidens policys are far more accurate to the warmonger ways of Bush than trump.  Yeah there are many repubs that are the same as biden and Obama like the Bush’s,Romney,graham,Abbot,and so many others that you being a Republican at one time,you got to understand that both parties are corrupt and one in the same,that it’s a one party system designed to look like two so dumb sheep like banker kid thinks he has a choice in who gets elected.Bush,Graham,and Romney are not Rinos,trump is.the majority of the gop is corrupt same as the dems. The dems have been infiltrated by terrorists funded by the CIA.

Thanks to trump they have not been able to infiltrate the tepublican party entirely.that would not be the case had trump not been elected though.Because of Trump we have some gop senators that are putting America first though instead of the corporations like Desantis!Noem,,and Kelly tshibata who looks like she has an excellent chance of replacing that evil corrupt Lisa what’s her name senator of Alaska.you understand all this,this banker kid is clueless though,he won’t accept reality Obama expanded what bush started or that Trump is not part of the corrupt two party system.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


You totally schooled him.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2021)

Angelo said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> ...


He is just lying as he always does when losing an argument,this kid try’s to tell me that I was in support of the War.!he way he talks he indeed is obviously a kid,shills don’t put words in your mouth and try and tell you that you supported the war.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


                    The understatement of the year.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


See what I mean? You are finding out the same thing I did,when losing an argument that the dems are as corrupt as the gop,he gets desperate and puts words in your mouth telling you what you did in the past,TELLING you,thst you supported the war.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2021)

struth said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Well said.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2021)

surada said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t know what would have been had we not gone into Iraq, but for argument sake let’s agree with premise that going to war with Iraq was a bad idea and you were right to be against it. It doesn’t mean you’re good at foreign policy, it just means you were right? granted high stakes right, but Hussein Obozo didn’t want to go to war with Iran and proved to be an idiot on foreign policy.
> ...


There goes the Langley lying sock puppet shill again trying to put non globalist America loving trump in there with globalist America hating bush again.no wonder this retard loves the post of that retarded kid banker.liars love liars.


----------



## The Banker (Apr 20, 2021)

Look at all these anti war hippies!!!

Republicans are a total joke.

We all watched these retards pump the War in Iraq for years, and now they all back track and try to claim they were against it before they were for it...

The GOP is a total joke, and they fucked everything up.


----------



## lg325 (Apr 20, 2021)

Short answer:  Yes.   The reason was good but strategy was wrong.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 20, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Look at all these anti war hippies!!!
> 
> Republicans are a total joke.
> 
> ...


I'm not a republican, jackass....Haven't voted GOP since '94, and not at all since 2000....Bush 41's warmongering and lying about new taxes was the impetus for me looking at the LP, which I joined after the GOP chumped me again in '95.

Your denials of your team's culpability are as lame as your recriminations of all who point it out.

You, sir, are a certifiable moron.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Look at all these anti war hippies!!!
> ...


         

Amen to that.He reminds me of smellybozo.Just because I voted for Trump smellybozo goes around telling me I am a republican never mind the fact that BEFORE  Trump,.the last GOP president i ever thought was worth a shit that served the people instead of the corporations is someone you got to go way  back almost towards the very beginning  of the 20th century, Calvin Coolidge,yet according to smellybozo,I am a republican.

Banker baby and smellybozo have got to be the two most biggest stupid fuck trolls on this board.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Apr 26, 2021)

I'm an independent, but was against the war just as much as I was against Obama's support for the so-called "Arab Spring"

 Because you are dealing with hopelessly inbred people with a primitive culture, there are only two forms their society can take -- rule by a strong-armed leader or rule by ruthless theocrats.  

At least with the strong armed-leaders there is a chance that we are dealing with those living in the modern world. The theocrats are guaranteed medieval barbarity.


----------



## Mindful (Apr 27, 2021)

Still suffering the effects of the fall of the Ottoman Emoire.


----------



## Stryder50 (Apr 30, 2021)

Most wars, like chess, consist of three phases;
1) The 'Opening Game" ~ Reasons for going into a war, initial moves.
2) The "Middle Game" ~ Execution and processing of the "war".
3) The "End Game" ~ Results desired, or achieved.  Note often the goal or desire is not the end result.

1) Assuming we are discussing the 2003 venture known as Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) there were several reason FOR resuming a conflict which the earlier armistice/"cease fire" of 1991 had not resolved.  I'll detail such at a latter time.
2) I'm inclined to think that the USA~Coalition did not follow an effective plan of operations to make this resumption of the conflict effective.  We could have done it better and such was possible.
3) It would appear that the End Results were not optimal, nor what could have been the best outcome. In fact one wonders if there was clear goals and plans on what to achieve and have as an 'end result' other than eliminate Saddam Hussien.

Short on time, but noting this as one to return to soon.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 1, 2021)

struth said:


> Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections



Really? What were Blix and el Baradai during in Iraq under UN resolution 1441?


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections
> ...


Blix was the guy that testified and reported Iraq continued not to comply


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Blix according to the UN resolutions legal structure must report that Iraq would continue not to comply until Blix determined the UN Inspections were complete and Blix would in that case recommend the lifting of sanctions. That’s the law.

So why did you lie?

Why did Trump tell you that Bush lied to invade Iraq if “Saddam wouldn't *allow* the inspections” was a historical and documented fact?

Yes, Trump Said Bush 'Lied' - FactCheck.org​
But Trump did say Bush lied, and on more than one occasion.​
In the Feb. 13 debate in South Carolina, debate moderator John Dickerson asked Trump about an October 2008 interview in which Trump said it would have been a “wonderful thing” if Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi tried to impeach Bush because he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Asked if he still believes that Bush should have been impeached, Trump called the Iraq war a “big fat mistake.” Pressed again for an answer, Trump went on to say, “They lied.”​
Trump, Feb. 13: You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you.* They lied*. They said there were weapons of mass destruction; there were non*e. And they knew there were none*. There were no weapons of mass destruction.​
As for his 2008 comments, Trump isaid of Bush in an interview with CNN,* “He lied. H*e *got us into the war with lies*.” Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” pushed back, saying Bush administration officials argue that the intelligence they received was wrong — not that they lied. “I don’t believe that,” Trump responded.​
Here is Trump’s exchange with Blitzer, who asked Trump to “grade” public officials:​​Blitzer, Oct. 15, 2008: Nancy Pelosi, the speaker?​​Trump: Well, you know, when she first got in and was named speaker, I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot. But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost — it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing.​​Blitzer: Impeaching him?​​Trump: Absolutely, for the war, for the war.​​Blitzer: Because of the conduct of the war.​​Trump: Well, *he lied. He got us into the war with lies.* And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true.​​(CROSSTALK)​​Blitzer: Their argument is, they weren’t lying, that that was the intelligence that he was presented, and it was not as if he was just lying about it.​​Trump: I don’t believe that.​​Blitzer: You believe that it was a deliberate lie?​​Trump: I don’t believe it. And I don’t think you believe it either, Wolf. You are a very, very intelligent young man. I don’t think you believe it either.​
You lied when you said “Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't *allow* the inspections.  Blix wanted to continue inspections but Bush ended them by invading.based in a lie as Trump says.

What about El Berada? Did he say that too regarding the nuclear weapons?

What was the date Blix said that  Iraq did not comply? And how long had the UN Inspections been in Iraq when he said it?


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


I didn't lie...what did I lie about? 

Did you read Brix reports?

"Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."



What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear. Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. 

The US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance–not even today–of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." -Brix  Testimony

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's remarks - Jan. 27, 2003



			BBC NEWS | Middle East | Full text: Blix address
		




			BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Full text: ElBaradei report


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

"Disarmament, and at any rate verification, cannot be instant," he said. "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months."



struth said:


> I didn't lie...what did I lie about?



You said Saddam did not *allow* inspections.

That is a flat out lie?

There were 200 UN inspectors in Iraq in March 2003 until Bush decided on the 17th to advise them to leave. .

Why didn’t you cite Blix who wanted a few months to complete inspections? There was no deadline in 1441 for Inspections to be completed.

Blix reported a more favorable situation to the UN on February 14 in his last report before the war began. He also warned that the intelligence provided to UNMOVIC had been found to be flawed in some aspects:11 https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/040126_wmdintelllesannex[1].pdf​​g/worldatom/Documents/. Transcript provided by ABC News.​
11 “The Executive Chairman provides the Security Council with an update on UNMOVICs work, UNMOVIC. Taken from transcript provided by ABC News.​​You did lie when you said Saddam did not allow inspections. there were three months of insp and you cited Blix as the authority so you should also cite his authority on requesting three more months to complete the inspections.


"After a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration in Iraqi initiatives in January," Mr Blix said.​He pointed out at length that weapons inspectors did not just operate under UN resolution 1441, which the security council passed unanimously in November, but under a number of resolutions passed since the 1991 Gulf war.​Several times, he referred to future improvements in inspections, including night vision flights provided by Russia, drone surveillance flights using German aircraft, and potentially out-of-country interviews with key Iraqi personnel.​​"Disarmament, and at any rate verification, cannot be instant," he said. "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months."​​







						Blix wants months - and Straw offers 10 days
					

Despite a report from the chief UN weapons inspector describing Iraqi cooperation as "active or even proactive", America and Britain today pushed for a resolution giving Iraq a maximum of 10 days to comply fully with UN demands to disarm.




					www.google.com
				


​


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> "Disarmament, and at any rate verification, cannot be instant," he said. "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He didn't...as Brix testified and reported.  Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents. 

I am not sure how much more clear Brix could have been for you...even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

BLIX: “since we began inspections”



struth said:


> I didn't lie...what did I lie about?



This is a lie.



struth said:


> Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections



And you proved yourself it was a lie when you posted Blix’s report on how the inspections were progressing:



struth said:


> since we began inspections."



So how is it that you did not lie when you said SADDAM did not allow inspections when you know th Dr Blix reported for three months about the ongoing inspections.


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> BLIX: “since we began inspections”
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No it's not...as the report highlights, and his testimony highlights...and well the UN saying Saddam was in violation of the Resolution.

Your defense of Saddam's half hearted joke of "compliance" is a failed attempt to rewrite history.

You can certainly argue that we shoudn't have moved to enforce the Resolution after it was violated...but you can't say that he was complying with the inspections outline in the Resolution


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> ..even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.



You are a liar. The UNSC decided cooperation was sufficient and to give Blix the time he asked fir Why don’t you read the link I posted?

But even before Mr Straw spoke, the idea of a deadline was rejected by the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, who told the security council: "We cannot accept an ultimatum as long as inspectors are reporting cooperation."​
He said a deadline would be "a pretext for war".​







						Blix wants months - and Straw offers 10 days
					

Despite a report from the chief UN weapons inspector describing Iraqi cooperation as "active or even proactive", America and Britain today pushed for a resolution giving Iraq a maximum of 10 days to comply fully with UN demands to disarm.




					www.google.com
				





struth said:


> .even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.



The UN and UNSC did not agree.


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > ..even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.
> ...


Nope, they said that Iraq wasn't complying.  

But yes, they disagreed with the United States and others on how to handle it.  We can certainly discuss that, but you can't argue they were allowing inspections in complaince with the Resolution.  They weren't.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

My God, I found a real Catholic NeoCon warmonger, WhoDaThunkitt?


struth said:


> .but you can't say that he was complying with the inspections outline in the Resolution



I can say that because Blix and the UNSC firmly agreed Saddam was complying at a pace sufficiently in order to peacefully complete peaceful inspections and the POPE himself also said so and agreed with continued inspections. ......But what do you care about what he says anyway? You were all  hopped up with all the Bush white evangelical Protestant Christian nationalists egging Bush to kick some Muslim ass after the 9/11/01 attack.


“War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations,” John Paul proclaimed on Jan. 13, 2003, even as he was sending his emissaries to Iraq, the U.S. and the United Nations to lobby for peaceful negotiations. “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations.”​
The Pope Pleaded. We Didn't Listen.​
The pope pointedly rejected such alarmist arguments and instead, on the eve of the invasion, endorsed the European proposal to rely on U.N. inspectors in Iraq and to provide a greater role for U.N. peacekeepers as an alternative to U.S. occupation of a crucial Muslim nation. “At this hour of international worry, we all feel the need to look to God and beg him to grant us the great gift of peace,” he said, rejecting a rush to war.​
I bet this is your cup of tea on invading a Muslim Country by cutting off the peaceful inspections process:

The Land letter was a letter sent to U.S. President George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002, outlining their support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.​​​The letter asserted that a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq met the criteria of traditional 'just war' theory because:​
such an action would be defensive
the intent is found to be just and noble. The United States does not intend to 'destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq'
it is a last resort because Saddam Hussein had a record of attacking his neighbors, of the 'headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction' and their use against his own people, and harboring al-Qaeda terrorists
it is authorized by a legitimate authority, namely the United States
it has limited goals
it has reasonable expectation of success
non-combatant immunity would be observed
it meets the criteria of proportionality—the human cost on both sides would be justified by the intended outcome
You are something else indeed.


And now these same white Evangelicals agreed with Trump - Bush Lied to invade Iraq mostly for them.

The world is absurd sometimes.


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> My God, I found a real Catholic NeoCon warmonger, WhoDaThunkitt?
> 
> 
> struth said:
> ...


Where am I being a warmonger? 

I simply stated the fact....the UN found Saddam was not complying with the inspections that were required by the Resolution. 

These are simple facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> I simply stated the fact....the UN found Saddam was not complying with the inspections that were required by the Resolution.



You have not provided backup for such a ridiculous so called FACT because it is impossible to be a fact. The UNSC never agreed with Bush and Blair to put a deadline on compliance so there was no non compliance, period.

That is not a fact. it is not the truth, you are calling the Pope a liar, flat out denying the Truth and denying all objective and even subjective reality.

You are a warmonger because by March 17 when Bush decided to invade, Saddam Hussein had been proactively cooperating according to Dr. Blix

There were a few outstanding issues mostly to do with chemical weapons and agents that were unilaterally destroyed immediately following the first Gulf War.

....and you still believe after witnessing hundreds of thousands of human beings killed and wounded and so much death and destruction and injury that he was justified to put an end to peaceful inspections because of some paperwork and testing issues on long destroyed chemical agents that  would take a few months to resolve.

You are actually a sicko when you ask this:


struth said:


> Where am I being a warmonger?


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > I simply stated the fact....the UN found Saddam was not complying with the inspections that were required by the Resolution.
> ...


How am I a sicko now?  Where have I once suggested we should have gone to war?   

I have provided the testimony and links to reports from Brix.  Direct quotes. 

and obviously the UN voted he wasn't in complaince.  I am not sure what else you want.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> and obviously the UN voted he wasn't in complaince.



You are a liar. The UN Security Council never never never ever even thought about voting that Hussein’s regime was not in compliance with UNSC 1441 Because it did not have a deadline date.period. Saddam Hussein was not required under 1441 to be in compliance with all his UNSC security council resolutions by March 17, 2003.

You are a warmonger for rejecting your Pope!s wisdom on a matter of Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> I have provided the testimony and links to reports from Brix. Direct quotes.



nothing that supports your claim that
The UN voted IRAQ wasn't in complaince with 1441. 

You cant because they never did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> Where have I once suggested we should have gone to war?






struth said:


> The Iraq War was a success...



What was the reason that Bush decided to kick peaceful UN Inspectors out and invade?

To remove WMD that was being hidden from the inspections.

There was no WMD in Iraq being hidden from UN Inspections.

We know it for a fact. Yet you call the invasion a success.

It was not a success. It cannot be a success because its purpose was flawed wrong and untrue.

When you call it a success you are glorifying war for war’s sake. You are a warmonger in that context.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> The only liars are the Dems suggesting they were against the Iraq War.



Biden on February 5 2003 believed Powell’s UN speech at the UN and I fault him for believing all of those lies.

but in this video as early as early February 2003 Biden was confident that if all those things that Powell said were true BUSH could get a second UNSC resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq. BUDEN said that was necessary because we were going to be in IRAQ for a long long time and it was going to cost billions and billions of dollars and he didn’t think the American people understood that.

I need to remind you that most of the evidence that Paul gave on February 5 was reviewed by the inspectors and none of it proved to be true. Biden didn’t catch that shame on him.









						Iraqi Weapons Violations
					

Senator Biden spoke to reporters about Secretary Powell's report to the Security Council on Iraqi violations of United Nations resolutions. He called on the Security Council to remain united in its pursuit of Iraqi disarmament and called on President Bush to bring any case he had for military...




					www.c-span.org


----------



## MadChemist (May 2, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...



I am sorry....by pathetic liars you are referencing the democrats who voted for the war ?

I was against it before it ever started.

If you were a banker....I can't imagine the mess.


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The only liars are the Dems suggesting they were against the Iraq War.
> ...


Xiden was talking about invading Iraq and removing Saddam...years before the Powell's speech...years before Bush was even in office...









						Joe Biden pushed for Saddam Hussein to be taken down five years before Iraq War
					

The former vice president's comments in 1998 have resurfaced as he faces criticism over his support for the 2003 Iraq War.




					www.newsweek.com
				





Biden said: "The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place. To deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you or I believe he's ever going to abandon as long as he is in place.

"But that doesn't guarantee, if these sanctions are in place, that the program's going to be anything other than curtailed. Doesn't guarantee we're going to be able to stop it."

"I think you and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam's at the helm, there's no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam's program relative to weapons of mass destruction," Biden added

  He later said the only way to oust Saddam Hussein would be to "require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot, in the desert taking the son of a— taking Saddam down." 

"You know it and I know it, so I think we should not kid ourselves here," the senator added.


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Where have I once suggested we should have gone to war?
> ...


Saying Bush had a success there doesn't mean that I was for the war.  It's just highlighting the obvious.

The reason the UN inspectors were removed is because Saddam had violated the UN Resolution and Bush, along with other nations moved to enforce the Resoltuion. 

There were a number of other reasons that Xiden, Clinton and the rest of Congress sited as well...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#:~:text=The%20resolution%20authorized%20President%20Bush,United%20Nations%20Security%20Council%20Resolutions



Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
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.
'These are all legit reasons to go.  I didn't say I supported going though.

With that said, it  was a success for Bush because he met the goal, a removal of Saddam, and left the next admin, a free and stable Iraq. 

Xiden and Obama really just screwed the pooch there though.  It would have been a much bigger success had we had competent leadership following Bush, that could have leveaged the success, which sprung the Arab Spring, to a success as well....but we didn't


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

Biden said Bush invaded Iraq too soon and without the world ....

You say Biden...


struth said:


> was talking about invading Iraq and removing Saddam...years before the Powell's speech...years before Bush was even in office...



You left the full truth out. Why?

Biden talked about a ground invasion of Iraq ONLY    ONLY    ONLY Only WITH UN SECURITY COUNCIL Approval 

Read this: JOSEPH BIDEN [D-DELAWARE]
Thursday, July 31, 2003

For me, the issue was never whether we had to deal with Saddam, but when and how we dealt with Saddam. And it's precisely the when and how that I think this administration got wrong.* We went to war too soon*, we went to war with too few troops, *we went to war without the world*, when we could have had many with us, and we're paying the price for it now.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20030731.pdf

We authorized the President to use force. *Congress did it to give him a strong hand to play at the United Nations.* The idea was quite simple. We would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, and what we would be saying is, "Saddam disarm or be disarmed."* In doing so, we hoped to make war less likely*. If Saddam failed to listen and failed, we would act, but we would act, we hoped, not alone or not merely with the British.

*But the administration, in my view, misplayed that hand. They undercut the Secretary of State, allowing our military strategy to trump our diplomatic strategy. *The world was convinced, the world became convinced, in my view, even some of our best friends became convinced that we were determined to go to war no matter what Saddam did.

We insulted our allies and the U.N. weapons inspectors somewhat gratuitously, and we failed to be flexible in securing a second U.N. resolution.

*For the price of a 30-day delay, I believe we could have gotten a majority, and I think many believe, including those at the State Department, could have gotten a majority-- that's my opinion. No one has told me that--we could have gotten a majority of the Security Council to go along with this.*


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Biden said Bush invaded Iraq too soon and without the world ....
> 
> You say Biden...
> 
> ...



The video I showed was clear, and well before 2003...moreover he voted for the Iraq Liberation Act in the 90s.

You are quoting lying Xiden...the liberal factcheckers even called him a liar for those lieshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/bidens-claim-that-he-opposed-iraq-war-moment-it-started/

Xiden didn't just support the Iraq War, he also supported Serbia, Montenegro, and Libya 

Xiden is a warmonger....if you support him you are a warmonger. 

Trump is the only President this century to end US involvement in conflicts overseas and not start them


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> he voted for the Iraq Liberation Act in the 90s.



There is nothing in it remotely endorsing a ground invasion by US Troops. Don’t you read the crap you throw at the wall. It had nothing to do with the Bush/Republican launched neocon warmonger invasion into Iraq in March 2003 that Bush ordered without UNSC Approval.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> You are quoting lying Xiden...the liberal factcheckers even called him a liar for those lieshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/bidens-claim-that-he-opposed-iraq-war-moment-it-started/



He didn’t oppose it but he said he would not do it unless we got a second UNSC Resolution to authorize it which means he would not have done it in March 2003 and I take him at his word.

I don’t expect you to understand what taking someone out of the word means.


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > he voted for the Iraq Liberation Act in the 90s.
> ...


He voted to overthrow Saddam...and he, as I already highlighted...in the 90s, endorced ground troops


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > You are quoting lying Xiden...the liberal factcheckers even called him a liar for those lieshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/bidens-claim-that-he-opposed-iraq-war-moment-it-started/
> ...


He said in the 90s to do it....and he did it without a second resolution!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> The video I showed was clear, and well before 2003...



It that your response to this?




NotfooledbyW said:


> but in this video as early as early February 2003 Biden was confident that if all those things that Powell said were true BUSH could get a second UNSC resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq.





NotfooledbyW said:


> Biden talked about a ground invasion of Iraq ONLY ONLY ONLY Only WITH UN SECURITY COUNCIL Approval





NotfooledbyW said:


> Biden talked about a ground invasion of Iraq ONLY ONLY ONLY Only WITH UN SECURITY COUNCIL Approval
> 
> Read this: JOSEPH BIDEN [D-DELAWARE]
> Thursday, July 31, 200



You have not responded at all.

I try to address every point you make.

You say nothing about Biden’s Call to get UNSC approval before invading in March 2003. It means he wouldn’t have done it without it.  Why are you afraid to acknowledge that.

You are lying by omission now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> He voted to overthrow Saddam...and he, as I already highlighted...in the 90s, endorced ground troops



Not using US ground troops and going in to nation build.

you are lying by omission on the content of the 1998 Iraqi liberation act. Lying is what you do well.

And he only endorses ground troops through authorization of the UN. You were lying by omission every time you repeat this one too.

It’s a policy difference from Republicans and the bush administration. And the policy difference matters. So quit the lie.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 2, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.



Here's the thing.   

Republicans and a lot of Democrats supported the war because Bush made the threat sound a lot more urgent than it was.  A lot on the left hoped the war would happen, be over quickly and then they could hammer Bush on the economy.  

There really were no good guys on that political fight.


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > He voted to overthrow Saddam...and he, as I already highlighted...in the 90s, endorced ground troops
> ...


Let me post this video again...this was 5 years before Bush:Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion


“You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. Y*ou and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”*


----------



## JoeB131 (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> Let me post this video again...this was 5 years before Bush:Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion
> 
> 
> “You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. Y*ou and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”*



Hey, maybe Republicans can all retire from politics, because they are never responsible for anything, according to you. 

Biden didn't send troops into Iraq, Bush did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

NOTE the words “IF NECESSARY”
BIDEN 2003 (Bush) must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.

BIDEN 1998 





struth said:


> guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. Y*ou and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”*



If you must go all the way back to 1998 to pick up on every single word a US senator says in a hearing, why can’t I go to the same US senator who said on February 5 2003. a month and a half before Bush decided to invade Iraq using ground forces and without the authorization of the UN Security Council in the form of the second USA resolution that Biden was calling for.

Biden February 5, 2003​
Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- as he already is doing, based on my breakfast with him this morning, with others -- with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.​
Iraqi Weapons Violations​
While the second resolution isn't a legal requirement in my view, and while we can win the war on our own, we are much better off if we support the United Nations and we move with a broad coalition. The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation -- hopefully not with merely U.S. forces. We want as many countries as possible helping us in this decade after Saddam falls. To get their help afterwards, we need to sign them up at the front end of this process, and getting them to sign up will be much easier if we have a second U.N. resolution.​
Why is my 2003 Joe Biden not relevant in your mind but your  1998 Joe Biden is the greatest right wing nut job Liberal gotcha in the history of mankind?


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NOTE the words “IF NECESSARY”
> BIDEN 2003 (Bush) must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.
> 
> BIDEN 1998
> ...


and then voted and supporter the war, because he had been pushing it since the 90s


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Let me post this video again...this was 5 years before Bush:Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion
> ...


Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> and then voted and supporter the war, because he had been pushing it since the 90s



Well if you were to understand the context of what was going on in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks you would be able to see why your criticism and judgments are off base. But I can’t expect you to understand anything about anything at all except what you pick up in the right wing propaganda machine and I see now you’re digging up from the far left dumping grounds to spread your hate.

When BUDEN voted for the AUMF in OCTOBER 2002

Saddam Hussein had not let UN weapons inspectors inside IRAQ since 1998.
The US and UK at a minimum were in  an air campaign against Iraq in the at least above northern FlyZone. And during the summer of 2002 bombing specific targets in Iraq was already going on.
Cheney argued that the US did not need another UNSC Resolution to invade Iraq. And the BUSH  Administration did not need a née AUMF Because they already had one for use of force against terrorists and  nations that harbor them.
Cheney  was pushing bush with all the war mongering neocons to go it alone to not mess things up by going to the UN Security Council In case Saddam complied.
On the other side there was the diplomatic minded  group pushing the effort to get a UNSC security council resolution to disarm IRAQ peacefully as one last chance to avoid war.
Bush in September 2002 sided with the Colin Powell diplomatic Group and stated numerous times that his goal was to avoid war
Many Democratic senators and congressmen met with Bush and they were  given his word that he needed  the AUMF in order to force Saddam Hussein and the  UNSC to resume inspections. That way if Saddam Hussein allowed inspections back in war could be avoided.
I agreed with the vote by Republicans and Democratic senators to authorize the use of force if necessary as pressure on Saddam Hussein that would force him to finally comply. I mostly agreed with that because war could be avoided if inspections got back in and the broader coalition that Senator Biden talked about could be formed if Saddam Hussain didn’t let inspections back in.

Another reason probably most important was the push by Cheney to go around the UN without even trying. That was certain war and it probably would’ve been even 10 times worse if the BRITs couldn’t come along and that case.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq



What success. What was the purpose of the war? When was the goal of the mission achieved?


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > and then voted and supporter the war, because he had been pushing it since the 90s
> ...


oh i remember, that’s why i don’t go around being critical of Bush and the people that supported it.  I remember the 90/s to and understand Xiden’s views and where they developed


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq
> ...


yes.  Read the points in the authorization that xiden voted for.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> and then voted and supporter the war, because he had been pushing it since the 90s



Are  you ever going to engage in a discussion. Why is the policy difference between George W Bush and Joe Biden not relevant? Do you think Biden was right to request Butch do not invade Iraq on our own without the approval of the United Nations Security Council under a new resolution?

I justo explained to you the conditions when Joe Biden voted for the authorization to use in IRAQ  in October 2002 to do  IT WITH support of the United Nations Security Council. And I’ve got some news for you about the hearing with Scott Ritter in 1998.

do you ever look up the context of anything you post.?  Not that you care?

Biden is arguing for diplomatic sanctions versus sonethin called “compelled access”that Rick Ritter was advocating for. Compelled excess would give the authority to a UN weapons inspector to start a war And send by sending in US ground forces.

Compelled access​
Joe BIDEN: As I said several times at the hearing, Ritter provided a very valuable service to his country. He came forward and forced us to face a stark choice in our policy toward Iraq: diplomacy or confrontation.​
Ritter advocates a policy that he described as "inspection-driven confrontation." He said the Security Council decided to seek diplomatic alternatives to confrontation, and some planned inspections were canceled after the United States raised questions. He stepped down in protest. I believe that was a courageous move.​
As I pointed out at the hearing, the Security Council's alternative diplomatic policy is not without logic. It is based on a strategy of keeping sanctions in place to deny Iraq the billions of dollars that could otherwise be used to restart the program of weapons of mass destruction. Your paper may not agree with that policy, but it has some merits.​
I also acknowledged that a policy based on sanctions does not guarantee that Saddam Hussein's weapons program will be curtailed. Ultimately, as long as Saddam Hussein is at the helm, no inspectors can guarantee that they have rooted out the entirety of Saddam Hussein's weapons program. And I said the only way to remove Saddam is a massive military effort, led by the United States.​
That's the stark policy choice Ritter has brought before the American people, and I commended him for it.​
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...respect/6acd6366-2058-4a7c-83cd-da4d345c144d/​
The questions I raised at the hearing had to do with the implications of Ritter's confrontation-based policy. Ritter acknowledged that, under his option, if Iraq denied access to inspectors, the United Nations, or the United States acting alone, would have to use force to guarantee access.​
I stated, "You have indicated your job is to disarm, and the only way to disarm is to have access, and the only way you can have access is either with permission or, if denied, forced access, right?"​
Ritter answered, "Compelled access, yes, sir."​
In my view, that means that an inspector, by forcing an inspection, can be taking the first steps that might lead the United States to war. I told Ritter -- and I still believe -- that a decision with those implications is "above his pay grade." I meant no disrespect and so stated at the hearing. I meant only that such a decision can only be made by the president, advised by the secretaries of defense and state.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> yes. Read the points in the authorization that xiden voted for.



Don’t you know?

I wanted to hear from you what it is. 

There is only one justification for the actual invasion. It’s to find the WMD. And there was none. So the war cannot be a success. Why do you think it was a success with the purpose of the war was completely wrong and based on lies.


----------



## struth (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > yes. Read the points in the authorization that xiden voted for.
> ...


yeah i posted them for you already


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> yeah i posted them for you already



What is “them”?   There is only one justification for the invasion. For example  the UN inspectors in Iraq were not searching for Kuwaiti paintings?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> that’s why i don’t go around being critical of Bush and the people that supported it. I



did you or did you not support George W Bush‘s decision on March 17, 2003 to invade Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly being hidden there from the United Nations Security Council’s WMD inspectors?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> yeah i posted them for you already



WHAT IS THEM?  there is only one: 

If peaceful means fails Bush is authorized to 
*defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat p*osed by Iraq; and all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

here Is the AUMF:
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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.



You are a liar.  THE (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in (DECEMBER) 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

The entire world knew that US TROOPS would be out of Iraqi cities five months after Obama was Inaugurated. and all troops gone by 2012.

Obama had nothing to do with it.

Bush had no say either because it was entirely up to the Iraqis who fiercely wanted no more extensions for multinational troops under UNSC 1790.

The IRAQIS  wanted US troops out and would not grant legal immunity for troops after Bush/Maliki 2 year SOFA expired.

*United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790* was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on December 18, 2007, extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 31, 2008. The mandate had been established in 2004 by Security Council resolution 1546 and previously extended by resolutions 1637 and 1723.[1]


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 2, 2021)

struth said:


> The Clinton/Gore Admin signed the Iraq Liberation Bill, and it was their intel that said they were developing Nukes.



I see when its the  Democrats in the White House the President and Vice President gather and analyze intelligence data

But when its Bush and Cheney they have nothing to do with gathering and analyzing intelligence e data.


----------



## MadChemist (May 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The Clinton/Gore Admin signed the Iraq Liberation Bill, and it was their intel that said they were developing Nukes.
> ...



The current moron in the WH can't analyze a lunch menu.

And Harris is probably just barely capable (of analyzing a lunch menu).


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


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



Yes there was a UN stipulation in the AUMF
How do you not know these things?
Its very explicit; (In bold)

EC. 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*.​


----------



## JoeB131 (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq



Success?  Did you say that with a straight fucking face?  

Bush's war in Iraq was a gross case of incompetence.  We went to war over weapons that didn't exist, we had no plan for securing the country, and we had to pay bribes to leave the country unmolested.   The people we left in charge immediately fucked it up and Obama had to go back in to save them, but we ended up turning the country over to Iran, which is what everyone predicted would happen back in 2003.


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.
> ...


what am I lying about?  Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.

and you are either stupid and simply fooled by leftist propagandist, or completely disingenous with your SOTA agreement talk. 

We have SOTA with every nation we have troops, they don't last in perpetuity.  We have dates to re-authorize them with all those countries for the benefit of those countries.    Trump for example reauthoritized one with Japan.  

Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq.  Frankly, I certainly hope he would't of left if he didn't think otherwise.   But he was shortsided and looking for a quick win to celebrate with his dembot voters....ignored the reality on the ground and the military....so we ended up aving to go back very soon after....and the world had to deal with ISIS, and an empowered Iran


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The Clinton/Gore Admin signed the Iraq Liberation Bill, and it was their intel that said they were developing Nukes.
> ...


When did I say the Bush admin didn't analyize the intel?  They did, it happened to be the same as the Clinton admin

"

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. ...

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits. ...

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. ...

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. ..."

— President Clinton ~ 1998


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq
> ...


Yes....we took out Saddam and left the next admin a free and stable Iraq.  I am not sure how you can say that wasn't a success.


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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


We were enforcing UN resolutions....the UN had already found they were in violation of 1441.


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > that’s why i don’t go around being critical of Bush and the people that supported it. I
> ...


well that was only one of the numerous reasons to take out Saddam.  I fully supported taking out Saddam, but I supported using special forces and more covert operations then a fully scale war.


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > yeah i posted them for you already
> ...


Obviously you didn't read the AUMF or my link: 




__





						Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
					

President Bush and House Leaders agreed on a resolution to authorize force against Iraq. The President believes such a resolution will make available the tools that he needs to deal seriously with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.



					web.archive.org
				



Here are some of the issues: 
'

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]


Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
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.


----------



## Desperado (May 3, 2021)

At first did I support the war but then it became clear it was based in fraudulent facts and lies.  The when it because a war for regime change it was very apparent it was for a lie.


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



SOFA not SOTA.. 

ISIS was born in Camp Brucca Prison in 2004. It was  finishing school for jihadis. 

We could NOT subject our troops to Iraqi justice.


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



The Gulf States didn't fear Saddam.. They offered him sanctuary right up to the invasion.

They opposed the invasion of Iraq to include oilmen, diplomats, Arabs, historians and military brass. They knew  war would put Iran in the catbird seat. .. and they supported the Dual Containment Policy of the previous 20 years.

Iraq didn't pay a bounty to suicide bombers.. They supported families who suffered losses under the Zionists.


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


You didn't have to...you just had to have a leader that could work out a deal...sadly the Dems gave us Obama and XIden.


You are right, the founders were in US custody, then nothing more then a JV Team...until Obama turned them lose


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Many Gulf states certainly did.....you know the ones he invaded for example. 

I am sure many states offered him a place, if he would leave power....that would have avoided the war all together if he volunteered to do that. 

After the success of Bush's polices and the rise of what seemed to be a democracy in the heart of the ME, we saw the surrounding Gulf States see a growing rise of revolution in their own countries where the people wanted Govt reform, and a more democractic regime.  Had we had real leaders in Washington, instead of the misfits of Obama, Xiden and Clinton we might have seen something real special grow out of the middle east and Arab World...instead we got a lock down by the Iranian Govt, death....and an even more powerful leading state sponsor of terror....WMDs being used by the Syrian Govt against it's own people, and a partnership with Putin, a return to the slave trade in Libya and dead soldiers and an Amb.


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



They were released from Camp Brucca Prison in late 2004. Things got quiet until Maliki began abusing the Sunni. Did you want to depose Maliki and start another war in Iraq?

Do you understand why Prince Bandar was recalled to Saudi Arabia just before Bush's invasion?


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



LOLOL.. Are you talking about Arabia, the Emirates and Kuwait? They warned the US NOT to invade even though Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctons.

The only way to stop the Arab Sping in Libya would have been a huge peacekeeping force. You all have tried to reinvent Gadaffi.. He was a pompous, ignorant Bedouin boy who had feared Libyans for 40 years.. His troops, police force and body guards were all foreign nationals.


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


More revision history

1) we didn't have to restart a war...we were there.
2) The Sunnis issue with him was that he was secular
3) he resigned on his own accord in 2014....and is still in public office
4) Abu Bakr al Baghdai, was a low level nobody, that became the leaders of one of the most powerful terrorist groups that had a massive 'state" under Obama and Xiden's watch....thankfully he was killed, and his "state" ripped apart due to Trump's leadership

Sure, about the Prince...so what?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688 





struth said:


> what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq..



At the time he was IN FACT leaving a free and stable Iraq although stable as in ‘ relatively stable’ compared to what? Its the word “free” in that statement that you don’t comprehend or recognize its significance that makes you a liar besides the lie that us so obvious if it had teeth it would bite you. 

But first why was Obama confronted with  dealing with the necessity of withdrawing 160,000 ground troops from Iraq at the very same time being confronted with the worst period of global economic instability in the world since the Great Depression? What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



You don't know anything about the ME or Iraq.



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
		


Why we stuck with Maliki — and lost Iraq - Washington Post

Jul 04, 2014 · Raised in a devout Shiite family, Maliki grew to resent Sunni minority rule in Iraq, especially the secular but repressive Baath Party. Maliki joined the theocratic Dawa party as a young man, believing...


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


We shouldn't of stopped the Arab Spring...that's the issue, we should of been supporting democractic change all across the middle east.









						Governmental positions on the Iraq War prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




" Pre-war, Saudi Arabia's public position had been one of neutrality in the conflict; worldwide media reported that, despite numerous American attempts, Saudi Arabia would not offer the American military any use of its land as a staging ground for the invasion of Iraq. In an interview, Prince Saud Alfaysal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister when asked whether Saudi Arabia would allow more US troops to be placed on Saudi soil, the foreign minister replied, "under the present circumstances with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq, I do not think Saudi Arabia will join in".[38] This was later explained to have been a public front, as Saudi Arabia, as well as Kuwait, was actually one of the most important allies in terms of offering coalition soldiers its land, including military bases. It was also eventually learned that a high-ranking Saudi prince had been at the White House on the day that the Iraq war began, and Bush administration officials told the prince to alert his government that the initial phase of the war had begun, hours before missiles first landed in Baghdad. Officially, Saudi Arabia wished to see Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime go, but feared the aftermath.[ "


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>?  Used WMDs against his own people?  Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Iraq and Kuwait have been fighting over an oil field since I was a kid. Saudi Arabia had NO beef with Iraq.. Saddam was secular and leaned towards the Sunni.

Cheney lied to King Fahd about Iraqi troops amassing on the Saudi border. Saddam never conducted a war on Arabia. He lobbed a few Scuds on the kingdom, but did no damage.

Abdullah and Salman knew Cheney was lying but couldn't convince King Fahd.

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS


			Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS
		


Cheney: I told King Fahd that the Iraqis were amassed on his border and we briefed him on the intelligence in terms of the size of the force that the Iraqis had already used in Kuwait.


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688
> ...



Have you ever been to Iraq or the Gulf states?

Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors.. and as for the 1st Gulf war.. The US envoy was basically giving Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

Stability in the region after 1990 until what? 27045152 





struth said:


> Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people?



I asked you this question:


NotfooledbyW said:


> What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?



I’m asking you again because I know it is a historical fact that when Saddam invaded his neighbor ( Kuwait) President Bush assembled a broad coalition under authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 which was adopted on 29 November 1990. And Iraq’s army was driven out of Kuwait within months and no American Soldiers marched into Bagdad. None were left there from that in 2009. I know because I supported the President!s  handling of that threat to our national security at the time. It was done well. 

When SADDAM used WMDs it was before the First GULF WAR and he may have gotten them from us but the point is moot to this discussion.

So I’ll ask again:  In 2009 not 1990, what the fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

The Pope is a clue perhaps it will jog your memory.


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Stability in the region after 1990 until what? 27045152
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cheney was hired by Halliburton to lobby his friends in government to lift sanctions against Iraq, Libya and the Stans.. He failed except for Liibya. I think Cheney had something to prove.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

surada said:


> Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors..



Further to that point in March 2003 There were an Unprecedented 200 UN inspectors in side Iraq peacefully searching for WMD. 

The region with respect to Iraq was as stable as it ever had been since 1990. 

And little discussed in DECEMBER 2002 AMIR Al SAADI IN NYC publicly offered George Bush on SADDAM HUSSEIN’s behalf to allow the CIA and FBI And US MILITARY into Iraq to help UN inspectors find WMD There. The response from the Bush ADMIN was we will see you in Baghdad (with shock and awe)


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors..
> ...



In 1997 and 1998 the Brits created Operation Mass Appeal to sell the invasion of Iraq. Sir Derek Plumbly was put in charge. They scoured the news and the internet for anything negative about Iraq.

Remember the Booze Wars in Arabia in November 2000? They really botched that.. and tried to make if look like the Palestinians were setting off car bombs in Arabia..  Instead they just blew up other citizens from the UK.. and ended up making complete fools of themselves.

With that in mind I think there was some level of agreement with Bibi's Clean Break Strategy even before Bush was elected.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too





Utilitarian said:


> You realize that about 40% of the Democrats in the House and the majority of Democratic Senators voted to authorize the Iraq War as well, right?




that is an incomplete assessment thereby making your statements only half true. Democrats some Democrats seeking to address President Bush’s decision to get a UN resolution giving Saddam Hussein one last chance to comply Voted as all of them stated at the time to authorize the use of force “if necessary”

Do you agree that is an undeniable historical fact?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> What they said then was that Iraq was a necessary war in order to get advantage in the war on terror.



and that my friend was American and European conservatives being dumber than a damn door knob.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> Iraq was the biggest exporter of terror, including Iran until Saddam was forced from power.



That is a precisely ignorant statement coming two years after the 9/11 attack which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein at all.


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

Utilitarian said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Utilitarian said:
> ...



I used to know all the CIA guys who worked in KSA. They were engineers, Arabists, most were veterans and patriots. The French have always had the best intel on the ME.


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


According to the quote, SA was working with us to out Saddam.

SA was one of the main reasons we got involved with outing Saddam, as they invited us in the First Gulf War in 91


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


I haven't...

But you are incorrect, SA in fact was one of the main reasons we got in the first Gulf War, as they saw Saddam as a threat.  Moreover, he literally invaded at least two of his neighbors...Iran and Kuwait. 

Moreover, the entire world saw Saddam as a threat due to his WMDs, and quest for nukes


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too
> ...


They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" i


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



The Saudis were lied to by Dick Cheney. They had NO beef  with Saddam. When did Saddam invade Iran?


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


The Iran-Iraq war. 

As highlighted, they had a major beef, and were leading reason for the first Gulf war


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

SENATOR JOE BIDEN (stutters on purpose) February 5 2003 : “The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, *if that proves to be necessary,* for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation”  26951511



Missouri_Mike said:


> I was for the war. And it was done. We destroyed their military and they were no longer a threat to anyone. We should have been done at that point. What I wasn’t for is two decades of nation building.



I respect your honesty. But if you thought Bush was going to take out SADDAM HUSSEIN and walk away within years and without spending billions and billions even if it went well You were sadly and tragically mistaken.

Tell me if you were somewhat supportive of going to war over the cooked up WMD threat   But you were able to absorb some understanding from Joe Biden’s warning on nation building Would you have marched against Bush before making his decision to invade prior to the fact as I did. 

Biden February 5, 2003​
Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- as he already is doing, based on my breakfast with him this morning, with others -- with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.​
Iraqi Weapons Violations​
While the second resolution isn't a legal requirement in my view, and while we can win the war on our own, we are much better off if we support the United Nations and we move with a broad coalition. The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation -- hopefully not with merely U.S. forces. We want as many countries as possible helping us in this decade after Saddam falls. To get their help afterwards, we need to sign them up at the front end of this process, and getting them to sign up will be much easier if we have a second U.N. resolution.​
Same  question for struth would you have marched against George Bush (The Decider) deciding to invade Iraq to hunt down WMD violations?


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> SENATOR JOE BIDEN (stutters on purpose) February 5 2003 : “The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, *if that proves to be necessary,* for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation”  26951511
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course nobody wanted to go, we wanted Saddam to comply....obviously.....duh

and Xiden was right, the hard part was rebuilding the nation and ensuring a democratic govt replaced Saddam.  We were on track to that, a free and stable Iraq was handed to him and Obama...sadly they dropped the ball


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> we ended up turning the country over to Iran, which is what everyone predicted would happen back in 2003.



Do you recall the neocons in the BUSH ADMIN saying the road to Tehran goes through BAGHDAD?

What say they now?


----------



## surada (May 3, 2021)

Sddam was a secular dictator. Iran got rid of a military dictator jus





struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


t the year before (1979) to be replaced by a religious fundmentalist regime. Saddam feared that the same would happen to him since the shia were a majority in his country, he went to iran to overthrow that regime. Of  course he was given full encouragement by US, who would not longer be getting cheap oil from Iran.

I was in touch with the Sudeiri Seven and several of the newspaper editors back them so I do know what the Saudi leadership were saying.


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

surada said:


> Sddam was a secular dictator. Iran got rid of a military dictator jus
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i agree he was, he was just a brutal dictator.  Faith met very little to him, it was all about power.  That doesn’t make him any better then a religious zealot dictatorship


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"



How was it either “necessary or appropriate” after this offer was made public?

Sunday,​FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday *invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. *​
Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain.​
"We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.​
Knowing the above offer was available has anyone asked Dubya about intelligence gathered in March 2003 presumably  checked by the CIA why Dubya did not allow the CIA agents go into Iraq to take the UN inspectors directly to the sites where  the most lethal weapons ever devised wee being hidden

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to *possess and conceal *some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”​
Why wouldn’t DUBYA exhaust every peaceful means such as sending the CIA Into Iraq to verify if the intelligence gathered was correct and not just speculation to justify preemptive war?


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"
> ...


i don’t disageee that he should have used black ops to take saddam out.

I think he and xiden were wrong to think ground troops was the only solution


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"



To do what if necessary?


(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.​
What other politician other than DUBYA  decided it was necessary to invade IRAQ in March 2003 without a broad coalition?

What was the rush with 200 inspectors inside Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> i don’t disageee that he should have used black ops to take saddam out.



I Know you are a fool, but my posts was not about black ops.

It’s about exhausting the very peaceful means of taking Saddam up on his offer to bring CIA Agents into Iraq just to verify this claim by DUBYA to justify invading Iraq.;
​​“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to *possess and conceal *some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”​​whoever gave this intelligence that was  used by DUBYA as a basis for preemptive invasion  into a Muslim Nation had to know the location that WMD was being hidden.. So why not exhaust every peaceful means, put off the invasion date a couple weeks, go RIGHT TO  the site of the hidden WMD and take that evidence to the UNSC and get a 2nd Resolution authorizing regime change as Biden would have done.

But what would have happened if that peaceful means (a site visit) took place - and nothing found?

what do you think?

What was the reality after the invasion when they went to those sites?


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > i don’t disageee that he should have used black ops to take saddam out.
> ...


yeah


----------



## struth (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"
> ...


all the people that voted for him to do what he deemed necessary and he had a coalition 

again i wouldn’t of used ground forces, like he and xiden thought was needed


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

struth said:


> all the people that voted for him to do what he deemed necessary and he had a coalition



Are you illiterate. That is not an answer to the questions. Would you like to try again?




NotfooledbyW said:


> What other politician other than DUBYA decided it was necessary to invade IRAQ in March 2003 without a broad coalition?
> 
> What was the rush with 200 inspectors ins



Of course Dubya had “a”coalition. It was not a “broad” coalition as the question is stated.

You also did not answer “What other politician other than DUBYA decided it was necessary to invade IRAQ in March 2003”.

You keep bringing up Joe BIden as if I it was he that decided to invade Iraq in March without a broad coalition.

I’ll be more direct due to your continued evasiveness. Did Joe BIden decide to invade Iraq in March 2003  without a broad coalition that was authorized by a second resolution by the UNSC?

And again, what was the rush to invade Iraq with 200 UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq?

Do you believe the threat to our national security was higher in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors in Iraq plus an offer by Saddam Hussein to allow the CIA in, than it was in October 2002 when there were zero UN INSPECTORS inside IRAQ snd when Joe Biden voted to authorize military forces in IF NECESSARY to protect American national security?

Was the threat from Iraq (a) higher (b) lower (c) same (d) didn’t matter in March 2003 than It was in October 2002. Pretend you are the Decider.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

Missouri_Mike said:


> It only became a fuck up when our government decided we needed to rebuild them to our liking.


It was a fuckup when Bush decided to launch a preemptive invasion into Iraq. No nation cannot topple a government and leave. Itv was a fuckup when any American civilian did not know the consequences of taking Saddam out sand did not oppose the invasion.

Biden tried to get stupid Dubya to slow down - no need to rush to war. And he wanted DUBYA to explain the fact of invasion life to those who were gung ho on the war. 

Biden February 5, 2003 Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- as he already is doing, based on my breakfast with him this morning, with others -- with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.​Iraqi Weapons Violations​While the second resolution isn't a legal requirement in my view, and while we can win the war on our own, we are much better off if we support the United Nations and we move with a broad coalition. The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation -- hopefully not with merely U.S. forces. We want as many countries as possible helping us in this decade after Saddam falls. To get their help afterwards, we need to sign them up at the front end of this process, and getting them to sign up will be much easier if we have a second U.N. resolution.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

Borillar said:


> We couldn't leave. The republicans wouldn't have any of that democrat cutting and running.


Didnt tough guy Dubya say to Iraqi militants “Bring ‘em on?”

BUSH Bring em on July 3 2003.​"There are some who feel like that, uh, if they attack us, that we may decide to leave prematurely.  They don't understand what they're talkin' about if that's the case. . . Let me finish.  Um, there are some who feel like, that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is *bring 'em on!*  We got the force necessary to to deal with the security situation”​
Contrast that to what Joe Biden was saying in JULY 2003:

JOSEPH BIDEN [D-DELAWARE] Thursday, July 31, 2003​
For me, the issue was never whether we had to deal with Saddam, but when and how we dealt with Saddam. And it's precisely the when and how that I think this administration got wrong. We went to war too soon, we went to war with too few troops, we went to war without the world, when we could have had many with us, and we're paying the price for it now.​https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20030731.pdf​We authorized the President to use force. Congress did it to give him a strong hand to play at the United Nations. The idea was quite simple. We would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, and what we would be saying is, "Saddam disarm or be disarmed." In doing so, we hoped to make war less likely. If Saddam failed to listen and failed, we would act, but we would act, we hoped, not alone or not merely with the British.​But the administration, in my view, misplayed that hand. They undercut the Secretary of State, allowing our military strategy to trump our diplomatic strategy. The world was convinced, the world became convinced, in my view, even some of our best friends became convinced that we were determined to go to war no matter what Saddam did.​​We insulted our allies and the U.N. weapons inspectors somewhat gratuitously, and we failed to be flexible in securing a second U.N. resolution.

For the price of a 30-day delay, I believe we could have gotten a majority, and I think many believe, including those at the State Department, could have gotten a majority-- that's my opinion. No one has told me that--we could have gotten a majority of the Security Council to go along with this.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 3, 2021)

theHawk said:


> Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry all voted for the war. You’re a fool if you think it was a “Republican” war.



Democrats decided to authorize use of military force in Iraq if it was necessary because SADDAM HUSSEIN did not let inspectors in. Saddam let them in up to 200 with more planned when they were cut off by Dubya the deciders decision to invade so they had to leave.

The invasion was not appropriate or necessary. Bush is a Republican who launched an unnecessary preemptive war. Its a Republican war.

Up to “mission accomplished” it was touted by Republicans as a Republican War - than ITV was a shit and all of a sudden ITV was Democrats voted for the War. - Then the SURGE worked and  purple thumbs and it once again became s Republican War - Then Obama  withdrew 160,000 troops on Bush’s deadline. It was DEMOCRATS lost the Republican victorious war. Baghdad will fall to ISIS  - Obama assembles a broad coalition / drives ISIS out of Iraq with minimal US Casualties, everywhere except Mosul which is surrounded by Coalition Forces 70 percent liberated - Republicans say Obama is weak. Trump wins - Mop up action at Mosul by Obama coalition - ISIS driven out of Iraq - Trump  claims  he defeated ISIS with his bare knuckles and will take IRAQ’s oil. - After claiming BUSH LIED about WMD. Republicans say Trump never said it.


----------



## theHawk (May 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry all voted for the war. You’re a fool if you think it was a “Republican” war.
> ...


Is that what you like to tell yourself?   

Obama refused to pull out of Iraq, he in fact started new ones by bombing Libya and funding Islamic terrorists in Syria.  That’s TWO wars started by the Hussein.  

Now we have Sleepy Joe announcing he will continue President Trump’s withdraw plan, albeit late.  However the Establishment has voiced “concerns” about the withdraw, and that includes your beloved Hillary Clinton.  His “withdraw” plan is an outright lie anyway, as the Pentagon is going to keep thousands of “contractors” in the country, in other words the CIA.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

theHawk said:


> Whoever said Bush and the Republicans weren't responsible for Iraq? Bush overthrew the dictor Saddam, much to your disgust. I give him all the credit in the world for that. Personally I don't agree with the way he conducted that war, but I still give him the credit/responsibility of it.






NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush is a Republican who launched an unnecessary preemptive war. Its a Republican war.





theHawk said:


> Is that what you like to tell yourself?



Aoosrently in 2013 That’s what you told yourself and the entire online world.
See your post at the top.

You are more right wing whacko than struth -


----------



## theHawk (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Whoever said Bush and the Republicans weren't responsible for Iraq? Bush overthrew the dictor Saddam, much to your disgust. I give him all the credit in the world for that. Personally I don't agree with the way he conducted that war, but I still give him the credit/responsibility of it.
> ...


You really need to change your name to “FooledbyDems”.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

theHawk said:


> Your future would-be President Hillary made the same case for that war.





theHawk said:


> Obama refused to pull out of Iraq,


At Least nine  years you’ve been lying about Iraq. Are you going for A record?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

theHawk said:


> You really need to change your name to “FooledbyDems”.


I’m not fooled by liars like you and your  INVADE IRAQ DECIDER who lied to invade Iraq according to you current Taliban sympathizer surrender monkey hero who only likes US  combat troops who don’t get captured. You’ve gone from one extreme to another in 8 years.


----------



## theHawk (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Your future would-be President Hillary made the same case for that war.
> ...


What lie?  Hillary did vote for the war, and today does not support withdraw.

And Obama did not pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan.

So where is this “lie” of mine?


----------



## Jarlaxle (May 4, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> War in Iraq was going to happen after George W. Bush was selected by the USSC, so it was not surprising...
> 
> Any Republican that is as old as me or older claims they didn’t support the invasion are lying and knowingly lying.
> 
> ...


You're so full of shit your breath stinks.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

theHawk said:


> Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry all voted for the war.



Biden would not have invaded Iraq though because he’s a wimp commie New World Order citizen of the UNITED NATIONS not The United States of America.. He told us that right here before the DECIDER decided to attack Iraq..

Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with - with key members of the *Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary* in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi Weapons Violations


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

theHawk said:


> What lie? Hillary did vote for the war, and today does not support withdraw.


Afghanistan is not Iraq.

hillary did not vote for War. The AUMF did not authorize automatic preemptive war. It authorized Bush to decide if war was appropriate and necessary. It was neither.

Prior to the war HRC’s public position  was to let the inspectors finish their work. As you know Bush did not let the inspections continue. He lied about WMD as Trump told you. And thats another thing HRC did not vote for a war that would eventually be based on lies and decided by a liar.

You love Trump. If Trump says Bush lied, Bush  lied to a US Senator on a Bastet of war and started a war. It is a lie to say HRC voted for War when you don’t give full context and cover up full context over and over again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

theHawk said:


> And Obama did not pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan.


That’s absurd (Iraq) Obama was correct not to pull out of Afghanistan and to add troops - Bush left a real mess in Afghanistan - Obama had to launch the largest air and ground assauit since Vietnam against the Taliban after they were given control of Kandahar by Bush’’s neglect due to Iraq.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.
> 
> and you are either stupid and simply fooled by leftist propagandist, or completely disingenous with your SOTA agreement talk.
> 
> ...



Okay, let's look at this one.  Obama went to Iraq and said we need to update the SOTA agreement. The Iraqis really, really didn't want us to stay, but if we were, they wanted the right to prosecute US Service Members under Iraqi law.   We really, really didn't want to stay, either, and we certainly weren't going to let our service members be prosecuted under their law.  

I'm not sure why Obama felt so obligated to continue Bush's mistake... but anything that followed was on the Iraqis, not Obama.  



struth said:


> Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people? Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?



Uh, yeah, what I recall was that Saddam invaded Iran with a wink and a nod by the Reagan Administration.  We supplied Iraq with a lot of weapons, we turned a blind eye when an Iraqi jet nearly sank _USS Stark_.  The Zionists screamed for years about Saddam, because he was a threat to them, and eventually, the NeoCons won out and we ended up doing their dirty work.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.
> ...


Let's just look at the facts, Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq.  He bailed on the it....a couple months later we had to go back because he and Xiden bailed out it and we had to fight something worse


JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.
> ...


The issue is this. Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq, a world free of Saddam who had terrorized the world for a decade, the leading terrorist operation living in caves....but he blew it all because he was unable to capitalize on the growing rise of democratic aspirations in the Middle East.  Thus...we were right back in Iraq a few months later, dealing with a much more deadly terrorist organization, that took over massive amounts of land, an empowered Iran (the leading state sponsor of terror), a Syrian dictator that was using WMDs, and to top it off he invited Russia back in the Middle East....


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > all the people that voted for him to do what he deemed necessary and he had a coalition
> ...


Sure it was....

Sure it was broad.  24 nations, from all over the world...not to mention NATO. 

I think the threat was the same...and unchanged from Oct 2002 to March 2003.  We are much safer now from the threat of Saddam


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> I think the threat was the same...and unchanged from Oct 2002 to March 2003.



Luckily we have a precedent for BUSH’s that become President wherein each assembled a coalition to deal with a threat from Saddam HUSSEIN.


Did Bush43 assemble ‘*as broad an international coalition *to launch a preemptive war of aggression against Iraq that included a blitzkrieg style ground assault on the 200 mile route from Kuwait into the city of Baghdad (Muslim population 5 million) and a shock and awe arial bombardment campaign on that city ‘ as did BUSH41 in 1991 when 54 nations assembled to drive Saddam Hussein’s Army out of Kuwait?

Yes or No.

Do you agree that Saddam Hussein took no action whatsoever between OCTOBER 2002 and March 2003 which neither INCREASED the  ‘continued threat*’ posed by the BAATHIST regime  in Iraq or DECREASED the ‘continued threat*’ posed by the BAATHIST regime  in Iraq?

Yes or No do you agree?

*continued threat*’ is the threat that began immediately following the 1991 First Gulf War and continued through JANUARY 2004 when David Kay of the Iraq Survey Group sat down in front of a US Senate microphone on January 28 2004 and with a few blunt words, We were wrong - Iraq found no stockpiles of WMD after the US invaded in March 2003.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > I think the threat was the same...and unchanged from Oct 2002 to March 2003.
> ...


I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first paragraph

as to the rest...why do you ask the same questions over and over?

Yes he formed a board coalition.

Saddam did take some actions....sure...but not enough and to little to late, they had 11 years, and played the same game over and over.....the UN said he was in violation.   They remained a continued threat. 

With that said...we sent ground troops in...like I said, I disagree with Bush and Xiden and believe we had other alternatives then ground troops...such as black-ops to take out Saddam.  But we did, we were successful in removing him, and successful in helping set up a democratic govt....and Bush left Obama and Xiden a free and stable Iraq.  What happened after that...well...it was like Tom Brady going down field to the 1 yard line and giving the ball over to a teenager, and saying look...just hold on and fall foward, we'll have a TD and win the game...and they of course turn it over...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq, a world free of Saddam who had terrorized the world for a decade,


You are a liar. Bush agreed in In the status of US forces in Iraq agreement in December 2008 that the US military basically must remain on bases and outside of Iraq cities starting in June 2009. That’s about four months into Obama‘s presidency when he was most importantly dealing The great Bush recession of 2008 and the mess Bush left him in Afghanistan.

That meant the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime we’re free to operate in the Sunni triangle as well as in Baghdad.

Since Bush from 2003 thru  2008 didn’t eradicate or imprison every single last remnant of the Saddam Hussein regime, with many crossing the border into Syria and taking up a relationship with Al-Qaeda and setting up Isis, You are a liar to blame it on Obama for not keeping 3000 trainers in Iraq past the Bush deadline. 

Bush couldn’t even find and capture or kill Osama bin Ladin let alone the formally secular minded officers from Saddam‘s deposed regime.  They pretty much became Terrorists aligned with the radical murderous terrorist caliphate that was forming in Sarita Syria and slowly infiltrated Sunni cities in Iraq. And Maliki being a MAGA Version Making let it fester by not dealing with normal Sunni’s populations needs. 

And you want to pin that mess that Butch left behind on Obama because the appearance was that Iraq was somewhat stable, but as I asked you before stable compared to what? Certainly was not more stable than February 2003.

Maliki being a MAGA version of Making Iraq SHIITE Again is what ultimately led to the rise of ISIS in Iraq  only in Sunni CIties.

Stop blowing smoke up everyone’s ass. There  was nothing Obama could do when you understand reality of the Bush invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003 without the broad coalition Joe Biden told you needed to be done under a second UN resolution if war was necessary.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first paragraph


What don’t you understand about it? I can explain more if you need help.

Bush’s father assembled a *broad* Coalition  and  they liberated Kuwait in 1991. 

i’m simply asking you if Bush Junior’s coalition was* as broad* as the one his father assembled.

I know the answer, I just want you on the record. Yes or no?

We know for a fact that junior’s coalition was not authorized to wage war under a new resolution by the UN Security Council like his father‘s coalition was as JOE BIDEN would have done.

That is a critical distinction between Joe Biden and your Iraq invader hero Who eliminated you say the greatest threat to world peace Saddam Hussein’s regime, when it was cooperating with 200 UN security council inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq, a world free of Saddam who had terrorized the world for a decade,
> ...



What did I lie about?  The agreement didn't end in 2009...yes Obama was dealing with the Recession that he helped create, and all he did was create double digit UE...but that's a different topic. 

Anyway...yeah Bush signed a SOTA...we have one with every nation we have troops in....Trump actually re-did one with Japan....we've had one there since Truman.  Obama simply couldn't get it done, and left, when the job wasn't totally done, and we had to go right back in.  The proof of his failure is just that, we had to go back.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first paragraph
> ...


I suppose I guess I didn't under if you were asking which was more broad...I believe the first one was.  I didn't count them up.  Not sure why that's important.   I believe in WW2 it was broader then the Gulf War...I am not sure what the point in comparing which is more broad matters. 

The USA doesnt' need the UN's permission to go to war.  Not sure where you got that silly idea.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> The USA doesnt' need the UN's permission to go to war.


I didn’t say it did. Biden said exactly what you said. The point is there’s a stark difference between Bush and Biden in March 2003. Now that you admit that Bush43 had a much less broad coalition than his father you must recognize the fact ( if you were honest)  that when Biden criticized Bush43  for not building a “broad” coalition he was probably thinking along the lines of the coalition that was put together in 1991. So we have established for sake of this argument what Biden meant when he said Bush 43 needed to put together a “Broad” coalition That  had UN Security Council approval under a second resolution dealing with Saddam Hussein‘s weapons of mass destruction.

I’m doing all this to explain why and prove that you are a liar when you’re falsely equivocate George W. Bush who was the president and the decider to a US senator that voted for the war only if it turned out to be absolutely necessary. When you leave all that out you’re a liar. You are a shameful political hack liar.

Plus you have since told me that you consider the threat from Saddam Hussein to be identical and without change from October 2002 to March 2003 which meant Biden was right Bush could have waited another 30 days or 90 days to build a broader coalition if it turned out to be absolutely necessary to send ground forces into Iraq.,

You said the threat did not change at all. So why March 19, 2003,? Why not April 30 giving the inspectors more time that Hillary Clinton had publicly asked for.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> What did I lie about? The agreement didn't end in 2009..



you’re flailing about with a bunch of meaningless information. Why did Bush agree  basically to a treaty and Obama was stuck with it requiring the US military in Iraq  not allowed to go into Iraq’s cities ? What could Obama have done after Bush tied the US military’s hands like that well the terrorist terrorist threat in Iraq was incubating in the Sunni triangle and then the cities were US troops couldn’t go.

I made several points on that matter and it looks like you’re running away from it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is a critical distinction between Joe Biden and your Iraq invader hero Who eliminated you say the greatest threat to world peace Saddam Hussein’s regime, when it was cooperating with 200 UN security council inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time.





struth said:


> ...I am not sure what the point in comparing which is more broad matters.


It was explained to you see the excerpt  above.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> Saddam did take some actions....sure...but not enough and to little to late,


Were Saddam’s actions between October 2002 and March 2003 favorable or detrimental to peace and stability in the region and the national security of the United States of America? If you think it was slight movement, it was movement in what direction? Toward Promotion of Peace or promotion of war?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> With that said...we sent ground troops in...like I said, I disagree with Bush and Xiden and believe we had other alternatives then ground troops...such as black-ops to take out Saddam. But we did, we were successful in removing him, and successful in helping set up a democratic govt...



Assassinating a  foreign leader is a war crime. Does the Pope know you are a self confessed proponent for war crimes. DId you want Bush to be a war criminal?


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > What did I lie about? The agreement didn't end in 2009..
> ...


He wasn't stuck...hence why it had a date to renegiate....same with Kennedy, Johnson, Trump, Obama etc with Japan and Germany....and numerous other nations we have troops.

The fact is Obama simply couldn't get it done....and you are simply parroting useless propaganda that defend his failure.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam did take some actions....sure...but not enough and to little to late,
> ...


unfavorable...hence why the UN said he violated the Resolution 1441


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > That is a critical distinction between Joe Biden and your Iraq invader hero Who eliminated you say the greatest threat to world peace Saddam Hussein’s regime, when it was cooperating with 200 UN security council inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time.
> ...


Doesn't really seem to follow...but oh well....

Bush wasn't or isn't a hero of mine....no modern President would make that list for me.  

Saddam wasn't complying...hence why the UN said he was in violation of Resolution 1441.    I get that you are bending over backwards to defend your hero, a man that used WMDs againist his own people and ran a brutal dicatatorship, oppressing his own people....but come on


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> Saddam wasn't complying...hence why the UN said he was in violation of Resolution 1441



You are a liar.. The UNSC never said Saddam was in violation of 1441. you cannot base your argument on a flat out lie, it makes your argument a fraud.

Half a million Iraqis and 5000 Americans dead and you lie about the reason Bush decided they needed to die to make an excuse for Bush.

If you are not lying where is the documentary evidence that the UNSC determined the 1441 inspection regime would *not lead to full compliance of IRAQ’s disarmament obligations* to the UN Security Council.  With a vote to end inspections because of lack of cooperation by Iraq.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

i


NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > With that said...we sent ground troops in...like I said, I disagree with Bush and Xiden and believe we had other alternatives then ground troops...such as black-ops to take out Saddam. But we did, we were successful in removing him, and successful in helping set up a democratic govt...
> ...


Oh who's going to prosecute the USA for it? 

Was Obama prosecuted for his assassination of Gaddafi?  Should we have prosecuted Kennedy for his attempted assassinations of Castro?  

and what about Saddam himself for his attempted assassination of Bush?  In fact that was one of the reason Xiden and Congress gave for Bush to have the go ahead in Iraq.  

and my faith and religion while important and something I would look to for guidance like our Founders did, I can seperate it from the need to run a Govt and have peace on Earth.  I can look to Saint Augustine for guidance on the issue.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam wasn't complying...hence why the UN said he was in violation of Resolution 1441
> ...


I am sorry...1441 stated that Iraq was in violation of Resolution 687.  Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441.  The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> I get that you are bending over backwards to defend your hero, a man that used WMDs againist his own people and ran a brutal dicatatorship, oppressing his own people....but come on


I’m challenging your failure to stick with facts and tell the truth.  Nothing more.

If I am wrong about the facts you could challenge me instead of that bullshit third grade nonsense.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > I get that you are bending over backwards to defend your hero, a man that used WMDs againist his own people and ran a brutal dicatatorship, oppressing his own people....but come on
> ...


You are wrong about the facts.  Saddam was in violation of the UN Resolutions...numerous of them.

The only question was what to do about it.  I agreed with you that a ground war was not likely the best solution, disagreeing with Xiden and Bush on that point.  

I thought there were other options available to take out Saddam.  Regardless, we did it, we successful got Saddam out, and left the Obama Xiden regime with a free and stable Iraq.  What happened after that...well...that was a mess


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> Was Obama prosecuted for his assassination of Gaddafi?



Obama didn’t assassinate Gaddafi. And much to your displeasure or ignorance Obama took military action within a broad coalition to enforce a UNSC resolution to protect 500,000 civilians about to be slaughtered by under Gadaffi command

Following the failure of the Libyan Government to heed the warnings issued on 26 February under UNSCR 1970, on 17 March the UN Security Council ultimately passed UNSCR 1973 authorising member states to ‘take all necessary measures’ to protect Libyan civilians. This included the declaration of a no-fly zone over Libya, but specifically excluded a UN-mandated occupying ground force.​
What were you saying about Iraq you should be very impressed with President Obama and what he did with regards to Libya.  






						Libya and the United Nations Security Council Resolution UNSCR 1973               – Parliament of Australia
					

Libya and the United Nations Security Council Resolution UNSCR 1973




					www.aph.gov.au


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Was Obama prosecuted for his assassination of Gaddafi?
> ...


Sure he did...his admin even bragged about it: 
Libya posed no threat, they weren't making WMDs nor had they used them.  I was happy he was dead...and really take no issue with taking him out....but the bigger problem was the fact the Obama admin had really no plan to handle the Arab Spring...and now Libya is home to one of the biggest slave trades in the world

Bush left Obama with a free and stable Iraq...Obama and Xiden left Trump with the largest refugee crisis since WW2.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> ou are wrong about the facts. Saddam was in violation of the UN Resolutions...numerous of them.


Where is your verification, You freakin liar?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> Libya posed no threat


It was authorized by the United Nations Security Council you dumb ass. Qaddafi was a threat to half million people in Benghazi you dumb ass

Saddam Hussein did not have any WMD in March 2003 either you dumb ass


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > ou are wrong about the facts. Saddam was in violation of the UN Resolutions...numerous of them.
> ...







__





						Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
					





					georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov
				




Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:





*UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990*
​



Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

​
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."




*UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991*
​

​
Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

​
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

​
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.




*UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991*
​

​
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

​
Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

​
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

​
Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

​
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

​
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

​
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

​
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

​
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

​
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.




*UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991*
​

​
"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

​
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

​
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.




*UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991*
​

​
"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

​
"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

​
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

​
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

​
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

​
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

​
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

​
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.



*UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991*
​

​
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.




*UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994*
​

​
"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

​
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

​
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

​
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.




*UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996*
​

​
Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

​
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.




*UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996*
​

​
"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

​
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.




*UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997*
​

​
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

​
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

​
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.




*UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997*
​

​
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

​
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

​
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.




*UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997*
​

​
"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

​
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

​
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.




*UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998*
​

​
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."




*UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998*
​

​
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

​
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.




*UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998*
​

​
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

​
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.




*UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999*
​

​
Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

​
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

​
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

​
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.


*Additional UN Security Council Statements*



In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:​

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Libya posed no threat
> ...


I thought you said it was a War Crime to assassinate a world leader?  the UN said it was ok to assassinte Qaddafi?  

Anyway...the United States Congress said it was ok to remove Saddam...so that's all I need for my President to act.  We are a soveign nation


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> the United States Congress said it was ok to remove Saddam..


No they didn’t you are a liar. Show me where the authorization to use force said that


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > the United States Congress said it was ok to remove Saddam..
> ...


Geez man....I have discussed this already with you, and provided the name of the Act...Xiden voted for this too...and Clinton signed it








						Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




and who can forget what Clinton said when signing it: 

"
President Clinton stated in February 1998:



> Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. ...
> Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits. ...
> It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. ...
> *Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. *...
> — President Clinton ~ 1998


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998


You lying dumb ass. Where is the violation  of 1441.


struth said:


> unfavorable...hence why the UN said he violated the Resolution 1441


That’s what you  said. 1441.
Didn’t you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> .I have discussed this already with you,


You are a liar. Show me the specific language where Congress authorized Bush to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq the sake of removing Saddam Hussein from the Iraq.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998
> ...


I already addressed this: 


struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> .and Clinton signed it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That did not authorize ground forces you lying dumb ass


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > .I have discussed this already with you,
> ...


I literally just provided you with the law....I am not sure how much more clear the langange from Congress be.   The policy of the United States after Xiden and Company passed it was regime change. 

I am not a liar because you can't read


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > .and Clinton signed it
> ...


I didn't say it did.  I can't tell at this point if your trolling or really not able to read or understand what you are reading.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 4, 2021)

Essentially, all favoring comes down to this:
Bush did it because he could and it is OK because the U.S. did it.
All those against realize it was against international law, against the spirit of America's origins, and catastrophic to America's interests.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> I thought you said it was a War Crime to assassinate a world leader? the UN said it was ok to assassinte Qaddafi?
> 
> Anyway...the United States Congress said it was ok to remove Saddam...so that's all I need for my President to act. We are a soveign nation





struth said:


> I literally just provided you with the law....I am not sure how much more clear the langange from Congress be. The policy of the United States after Xiden and Company passed it was regime chang



You argued using the lie “the UN said it was ok to assassinte Qaddafi?”

Then you added to that lie “Anyway...the United States Congress said it was ok to remove Saddam...so that's all I need for my President to act”

I thought you meant Bush’s regime change  by ground invasion in March 2003,  because the US Congress has never authorized regime change by assassinating a leader or sending in ground forces fir regime change sake.

Since you’ve admitted that The  Iraq liberation act was not regime change by sending in ground forces Now that I understand exactly how stupid you are you need to show me where the Iraq liberation act says it was OK to assasinate Saddam Hussein.

If it’s in there cut and paste the exact language.

If you cant you are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> Essentially, all favoring comes down to this:
> Bush did it because he could and it is OK because the U.S. did it.
> All those against realize it was against international law, against the spirit of America's origins, and catastrophic to America's interests.


IN YOUR OPINION do you THINK  struth IS “ok with it” or against the most disastrous US Presidential *decision* in history to ‘unilaterally launch a preemptive invasion of Iraq on March 17 2003?

here are some recent Quotes.


struth said:


> Yes....we took out Saddam and left the next admin a free and stable Iraq. I am not sure how you can say that wasn't a success.





struth said:


> We were enforcing UN resolutions....the UN had already found they were in violation of 1441.





struth said:


> well that was only one of the numerous reasons to take out Saddam. I fully supported taking out Saddam, but I supported using special forces and more covert operations then a fully scale war.





struth said:


> They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"





struth said:


> Of course nobody wanted to go, we wanted Saddam to comply....obviously.....duh
> 
> and Xiden was right, the hard part was rebuilding the nation and ensuring a democratic govt replaced Saddam. We were on track to that, a free and stable Iraq was handed to him and Obama...sadly they dropped the ball





struth said:


> i don’t disageee that he should have used black ops to take saddam out.
> 
> I think he and xiden were wrong to think ground troops was the only solution





struth said:


> again i wouldn’t of used ground forces, like he and xiden thought was needed





struth said:


> I disagree with Bush and Xiden and believe we had other alternatives then ground troops...such as black-ops to take out Saddam. But we did, we were successful in removing him, and successful in helping set up a democratic govt...





struth said:


> Bush wasn't or isn't a hero of mine.





struth said:


> Oh who's going to prosecute the USA for it?





struth said:


> fact that was one of the reason Xiden and Congress gave for Bush to have the go ahead in Iraq





struth said:


> I am sorry...1441 stated that Iraq was in violation of Resolution 687. Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying





struth said:


> I thought there were other options available to take out Saddam. Regardless, we did it, we successful got Saddam out,





struth said:


> Anyway...the United States Congress said it was ok to remove Saddam...so that's all I need for my President to act. We are a soveign nation


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you said it was a War Crime to assassinate a world leader? the UN said it was ok to assassinte Qaddafi?
> ...


That was a question...not sure how a question can be a lie....

The US Congress did say it was ok to get rid of Saddam.  I provided you with the Act they passed.  Not sure how that's a lie...are you saying the Act itself is a lie?  I don't follow

The US Govt authorized the use of Ground forces later....but they did authorize regime change in 1998.  Both, or either or, were enough for Bush to use the CIA or Special Forces to take out Saddam...which I would have supported prior to using Ground Forces. 

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."


 Where does it say anything about by assassination or using ground forces.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."
> ...


when did I say that it authorized him to use ground forces?  Either way...it's broad...it says remove...doesn't given him direct on how...which leaves it up to whomever the President is.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> Let's just look at the facts, Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq. He bailed on the it....a couple months later we had to go back because he and Xiden bailed out it and we had to fight something worse



But it wasn't "Free" or "Stable".  We bribed the Sunni Tribesmen to behave just long enough to pull out most of our troops, and when Maliki stopped bribing them, they took up arms again.  



struth said:


> The issue is this. Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq, a world free of Saddam who had terrorized the world for a decade, the leading terrorist operation living in caves....but he blew it all because he was unable to capitalize on the growing rise of democratic aspirations in the Middle East.



Uh, no, stupid.  The problem is, if you had an election in the Middle East, the Jihadists would win.  Just like if we ever held a real election in Vietnam, Ho Chi Mihn would have won.  Or when we hold free elections in America, Trump loses.  

Democracy doesn't mean, "you only get to vote for people we like".  



struth said:


> Thus...we were right back in Iraq a few months later, dealing with a much more deadly terrorist organization, that took over massive amounts of land, an empowered Iran (the leading state sponsor of terror), a Syrian dictator that was using WMDs, and to top it off he invited Russia back in the Middle East....



Are you quite possibly retarded?   ISIS gained power because the BUSH put in charge were not up to the task of running the country.  Full Stop.   Just how much more blood and treasure was Obama supposed to expend for Bush's mistake?


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just look at the facts, Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq. He bailed on the it....a couple months later we had to go back because he and Xiden bailed out it and we had to fight something worse
> ...


1) obama said it was
2) not in iraq, they didn’t.  Ho couldn’t if won south vietnam hence why he invaded, and had to over throw the elected president 
3) ISIS gained power years after bush was out of office.  Try again


----------



## JoeB131 (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> 1) obama said it was
> 2) not in iraq, they didn’t. Ho couldn’t if won south vietnam hence why he invaded, and had to over throw the elected president
> 3) ISIS gained power years after bush was out of office. Try again



1) You believe politicians just because they say something. 
2) No, the Jihadists would have won if we let them on the ballot.. In fact, they DID win in Egypt, and then we let the military put down the only instance of Democracy the Middle East ever really had.  
3) Who do you think was in ISIS?  Uh, it was all those ex-Baathists that Bush put out of jobs.


----------



## the other mike (May 4, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


If Democrats were really against the Iraq war, they would have nominated Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold in 2004.....but who did they give us ?  John Kerry, one of the Democrat Senators who voted for the war along with Hillary , Biden etc..


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > 1) obama said it was
> ...


1) so obama lied? why?
2) iraq is a different country and the they won there because obama backed them
3) terrorist


----------



## JoeB131 (May 4, 2021)

Angelo said:


> If Democrats were really against the Iraq war, they would have nominated Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold in 2004.....but who did they give us ? John Kerry, one of the Democrat Senators who voted for the war along with Hillary , Biden etc..



Except Russ didn't run in 2004, and Kucinich was a joke. 

Being against the war was besides the point when we had already been in it for a year. 

That said, Kerry was a poor choice.  Mostly because he tried to paint himself as a "war hero" and ignore his past as a war protester.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> 1) so obama lied? why?
> 2) iraq is a different country and the they won there because obama backed them
> 3) terrorist



I have to ask this, are you a high-functioning retard?   I mean, are you incapable of any ability to reason?  

The reason why ISIS rose is because the Sunnis who had enjoyed power in Saddam's Iraq were now in a minority, and the Shi'ites weren't in a mood to share power.   That's really not anyone's fault.  Maybe Bush's for toppling Saddam to start with.


----------



## the other mike (May 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except Russ didn't run in 2004, and Kucinich was a joke.


Kucinich is one of the only honest politicians ever.
If that's a joke I'll take him over anyone you can name right now, still.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 4, 2021)

Angelo said:


> Kucinich is one of the only honest politicians ever.
> If that's a joke I'll take him over anyone you can name right now, still.



No, the man really was a joke.  Just like Trailer-Park Greene is a joke. AOC is a joke.


----------



## the other mike (May 4, 2021)

Gas was over $4 a gallon through Bush's whole second term.


----------



## the other mike (May 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Kucinich is one of the only honest politicians ever.
> ...


He was Mayor of Cleveland when I lived up there.
I know who he is. Thank you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> Saying Bush had a success there doesn't mean that I was for the war. It's just highlighting the obvious.


What made Bush’s success possible? A clue.  It starts with an S and ends with an urge.

What exactly was the Surge?
Why did Bush have no other choice but to do a surge?




struth said:


> The reason the UN inspectors were removed is because Saddam had violated the UN Resolution and Bush, along with other nations moved to enforce the Resoltuion.



Are you talking about 1441?  There are Fifteen members on the UN Security Council. It would have taken 8 members to make that decision - You are a liar every time you re

You are 0 for 20



struth said:


> Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.


1441 gave SH a final opportunity to comply. AUMF did not authorize use if force for past violations



struth said:


> Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."



1441 gave SH a final opportunity to comply. AUMF did not authorize use if force for past violations - determining if that was  ‘continuing’ was the purpose of having 200 UNMOVIC Inspectors in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion



struth said:


> Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."



Not happening at the time and 1441 had no stipulation on the matter.




struth said:


> Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".




Not happening at the time and 1441 had no stipulation on the matter.




struth said:


> 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.


Not happening at the time and 1441 had no stipulation on the matter.



struth said:


> 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.




No evidence of at the time and 1441 had no stipulation on the matter.




struth said:


> Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.



No evidence of that at the time and 1441 had no stipulation on the matter.



struth said:


> Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.



So did Saudi Arabia and they produced the majority of the 9/11  and 1441 had no stipulation on the matter.



struth said:


> The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.



Nothing burger and  and 1441 had no stipulation on the matter. Blux was not hunting down



struth said:


> The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.


????!!!


struth said:


> The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.


??????? You’ve are a dumbass. There Saudis opposed Dubya’s preemptive war.
Turkey didn’t want the Kurds thinking they could  have their own Kurdish Nation. 


Whatever mistakes the Iraqi government may have made over the years, "the Iraqi people should not have to pay the price," Abdullah said. "Iraq must stay united, free, independent -- a principle that we refuse to negotiate or discuss."​
Ensuring the security of Saudi Arabia is the job of all Saudi citizens, he said. "We should not allow outsiders and any bad influences to affect our Islamic and Arabic treasures and beliefs, which are the basis of our society and the security and peace of our country."​
In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Saudi Arabia had agreed to join 32 other nations who had allied with the United States against Iraq.​
The kingdom was a key base for U.S. operations during the military campaign to rid invading Iraqi troops from neighboring Kuwait.​



struth said:


> 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.


In March 2003 There was no Democratic Replacement  nurtured and ready to takeover. Onky Bedlam  and Shiite 



struth said:


> With that said, it was a success for Bush because he met the goal, a removal of Saddam, and left the next admin, a free and stable Iraq.



What was the cost of Bush’s success. Did you support the surge to achieve



struth said:


> Xiden and Obama really just screwed the pooch there though. It would have been a much bigger success had we had competent leadership following Bush, that could have leveaged the success, which sprung the Arab Spring, to a success as well....but we didn't



Bush agreed US Troops out of Iraq cities by June 2009.



struth said:


> oh i remember, that’s why i don’t go around being critical of Bush and the people that supported it. I remember the 90/s to and understand Xiden’s views and where they developed



Becsyse you dumb duck you  supported it. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> (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.



Thats The only reason to launch a preemptive war. 



struth said:


> Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people? Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?



Violating 1441 was the only reason for War.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 4, 2021)

Angelo said:


> He was Mayor of Cleveland when I lived up there.
> I know who he is. Thank you.



I visited Cleveland once in 2012.... I'm sorry anyone had to live there.


----------



## struth (May 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > 1) so obama lied? why?
> ...


they rose to power because obama pulled troops out to soon and told them when we’d be out. 


why did obama lie?


----------



## the other mike (May 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > He was Mayor of Cleveland when I lived up there.
> ...


I was 30 miles south in Akron - you can blame my dad for that move---although, before that it was Wheeling West Va. ...grass is always greener.
disclaimer -
I was born in Brooklyn NY, so hold off on the hillbilly jokes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> they rose to power because obama pulled troops out to soon and told them when we’d be out.


Who died and made you an expert on the rise of ISIS when you refuse to acknowledge the fact that when Bush left office There were 160,000 US Troops on  the ground in IRAQ and Iraqis could not tell them to pack their shit up and go home the next day. And they were permitted to patrol in US cities.

Fast forward to June 2009 under Obama and  Bush‘s SOFA where you also refuse to acknowledge the fact that were still 160,000 US Troops on the ground in IRAQ but the role was about to change.  Iraqis could now tell them to pack their shit up and go home the next day. And they were NOT permitted to patrol in US cities.

Of course Iraq was more stable than it was  from 2004 through 2007 and Obama was correct to recognize that.

But the US Military was on its way out to meet BUSH’s deadline and troops could  not operate in Sunni Cities where terrorist cells were forming as early as 2010.

The terrorists could not breathe a breath of life in Iraq when Saddam Hussein  was in power.

And you think you can blame Obama for the rise of ISIS.  You are a dumb ass because of that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 4, 2021)

struth said:


> they rose to power because obama pulled troops out to soon and told them when we’d be out.


No a Bush set the dates out of cities and out of the country so you are lying.


----------



## the other mike (May 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > they rose to power because obama pulled troops out to soon and told them when we’d be out.
> ...


Obama was vetted to be the puppet and scapegoat for foreign policies already set in motion....if McCain had somehow won the 2008 election ( or Hillary for that matter) not much would have been different.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> 'These are all legit reasons to go. I didn't say I supported going though.​



The moment you swallowed what Trump calls Bush and Cheney LIES and put it in your mouth you are a supporter of LIES and a denier of TRUTH about Iraq. That makes you a supporter of the unnecessary and (as Obama called it with wisdom and foresight) a “dumb war” 

You supported a “dumb” war and you can’t double talk your way out if it now.




struth said:


> Saying Bush had a success there doesn't mean that I was for the war. It's just highlighting the obvious.



No. you are wrong. You are referring to Bush’s success at NATION BUILDING. You are in denial of the failure of the “threat of our national security”  *purpose* of starting the war which had a clearly stated reason for the immediate and hasty decision: in what Dubya called the FINAL DAYS OF DECISION: 

 “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER (not endorsed or supported by any Democrat except maybe Joe      ...............Lieberman​


struth said:


> Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq



It took 200,000 Ground Troops which, with a forked  tongue,  you say you oppose. And  You voted for Trump who  must consider you a dumbass for crediting DUBYA’s mistake to be a great success. Like so many dumb asses that vote for him. 
​TRUMP: “This will be a big week for Infrastructure. After so stupidly spending $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is now time to start investing in OUR Country!” — tweet.​AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of warTRUMP: “I said this morning as of a couple months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East — $7 trillion. What a mistake. And — but it is what it is. This is what I took over. And we’re trying to build roads and bridges and fix bridges that are falling down. And we have a hard time getting the money. It’s crazy. But think of that as of a couple months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East, and the Middle East is far worse now than it was 17 years ago when they went in, and not so intelligently, I have to say, went in.” — remarks at White House infrastructure even​​


struth said:


> Yes....we took out Saddam and left the next admin a free and stable Iraq. I am not sure how you can say that wasn't a success.



Actual COST WAS ONLY 4421 Uniformed  American Dead, half a million Iraqis dead and ..................$$$$$$$$$$
The Pentagon estimates that wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have directly cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.5 trillion. Actual costs are higher.​AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war
Boston University political scientist Neta C. Crawford, as co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University, estimated that as of September, U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria — plus additional spending on homeland security, the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department since the 2001 terrorist attacks — cost more than $4.3 trillion.​That rises to an estimated $5.6 trillion or more when anticipated future spending on veterans and other factors related to the wars so far are added.​


struth said:


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


Are you pleased that these men and women gave their lives to “take out Saddam” instead of finding what Bush told them was being”hidden” there:
The US has lost 4,487 service personnel in Iraq since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 19 March 2003, according to the latest figures from the US Department of Defense.
us military deaths in iraq since 2003​By 31 August 2010, when the last US combat troops left, 4,421 had been killed.​
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.​
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AFTER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Sunday , December 22, 2002 WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.​

You say the March 2003 preemptive war to find hidden WMD was a *Republican success */ Well kiss my ass you bloomin’ idiot Trump voter.

The US has lost 4,487 service personnel in Iraq, causing half a million Iraqis to live free or die without being consulted on that  being killed in the American Republican SUCCESS, that will end up costing an estimated $5.6 trillion or more when anticipated future spending on veterans and other factors related to the wars so far are added in.

Is this what a Catholic upbringing hath wrought ? My God why hast thou forsaken human intelligence and moral feeling in this human being?


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.


A funny phenomena is occurring in the Dem paarty right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


MSNBC---hahahahahahah = crap 
....the war is not a huge failure---again, most of you people don't know shit about wars


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > 'These are all legit reasons to go. I didn't say I supported going though.​
> ...





harmonica said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the Dem paarty right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.


Cite?


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


you don't get it!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA he's babbling crap


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

harmonica said:


> ..the war is not a huge failure-​



TRUMP: “I said this morning as of a couple months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East — $7 trillion. *What a mistake. And — but it is what it is*​
TRUMP: “This will be a big week for Infrastructure. After so stupidly spending $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is now time to start investing in OUR Country!” — tweet.​AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war
TRUMP: “I said this morning as of a couple months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East — $7 trillion. What a mistake. And — but it is what it is. This is what I took over. And we’re trying to build roads and bridges and fix bridges that are falling down. And we have a hard time getting the money. It’s crazy. But think of that as of a couple months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East, and the Middle East is far worse now than it was 17 years ago when they went in, and not so intelligently, I have to say, went in.” — remarks at White House infrastructure even​
The Pentagon estimates that wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have directly cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.5 trillion. Actual costs are higher.


AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war

Boston University political scientist Neta C. Crawford, as co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University, estimated that as of September, U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria — plus additional spending on homeland security, the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department since the 2001 terrorist attacks — cost more than $4.3 trillion.

That rises to an estimated $5.6 trillion or more when anticipated future spending on veterans and other factors related to the wars so far are added.


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > ..the war is not a huge failure-​
> ...


like I said, you people don't know shit about wars .....WW2 cost much more....
...wars are expensive --DUH


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

harmonica said:


> you don't get it!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA he's babbling crap


Who is? Trump?

TRUMP: “I said this morning as of a couple months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East — $7 trillion. What a mistake. And — but it is what it is


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > you don't get it!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA he's babbling crap
> ...


yes, you don't know shit ......you are babbling crap also ....
..most [ almost all ] modern wars end in cease fires/etc--not unconditional surrender .....I'll be back later to give you more lessons


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

harmonica said:


> like I said, you people don't know shit about wars .


Trump don’t know shit about wars?????

Did you vote for the racist orange buffoon to be COMMANDER IN CHIEF?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

harmonica said:


> like I said, you people don't know shit about wars .....


 
At least you’ve got struth on your side.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

harmonica said:


> I'll be back later to give you more lessons


you might want to delete your posts before it’s too late.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > they rose to power because obama pulled troops out to soon and told them when we’d be out.
> ...


I woudn't say I am an expert....I mean I just follow the basic news.  

Yes, when Obama took office he was handed a free and stable Iraq, and he failed to renegitate a proper SOFA....announced we were leaving, and ISIS, and other terrorist ran wild....and we had to go back in...but here's the kicker...not just in Iraq...but all over the Middle East...great job Xiden and Obama


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > like I said, you people don't know shit about wars .....
> ...


anyone that doesn't support terrorist and brutal dictators like Saddam certainly does


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

harmonica said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



What did we accomplish by invading Iraq ... other than creating ISIS and destabilizing the whole region?

Have you read Bibi's Clean Break Strategy?


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > 'These are all legit reasons to go. I didn't say I supported going though.​
> ...


1) those reasons were from Congress, in their authorization for war.  Not from Bush.  All legit reasons.
2) No I am not wrong...Bush was successful in taking out Saddam...he was somewhat successful in helping building the nation, but didn't have enough time, instead the idiot Obama Xiden got elected and dropped the ball.
3)yeah it took a lot of troops...like I said, that wasn't my first choice...not sure if my first choice would have worked or not..but it wasn't my first choice...but nonetheless didn't mean it wasn't a success until Obama and Xiden wasted all we gained with their failed leadership.
4) yes, I am pleased...that was the main goal...I was sad though when ISIS Mosul...kind of a kick in the face to our servicemen to see Obama and Xiden turn their back on all that gained. 
5) I am not sure what my faith has to do with anything, and why you continue to bring it up...your anti-Catholic bigotry is noted and nothing new in regards to the Dems...sadly


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Wasn't so free or stable in 2009. I was still counting sabotage events.

How do you "renegotiate"  a ratified agreement?

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS


			Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS
		


Cheney: I told King Fahd that the Iraqis were amassed on his border and we briefed him on the intelligence in terms of the size of the force that the Iraqis had already used in Kuwait.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> , when Obama took office he was handed a free and stable Iraq, and he failed to renegitate a proper SOFA


What conditions on the ground and In legal and sovereignty terms were different in 2008 with respect to SOFA when Bush was a negotiator and 2009 when Obama became a negotiator and needed to stick to the deadlines abd conditions that Bush agreed to.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

surada said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Hold the phone here...that's what we accomplished be electing Obama and Xiden.  Prior to their election we had a free and stable Iraq, and a growing democractic uprising in other Middle East countries, including Iran....Obama and Xiden's failures and inability to lead caused the major ball drop there.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Obama said it was free and stable.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > , when Obama took office he was handed a free and stable Iraq, and he failed to renegitate a proper SOFA
> ...


The conditions we should be looking at is when the deadline came up....so 2011. The conditions were certainly better....but not perfect.  

The main condition that changed in 2011, was that it was an election year for Obama and Xiden and they needed something to campaign on since, they couldn't really campaign on domestic success given the double digit UE they created, their failed "stimulus" and bailing out donors...so they campaigned on the false narrative they were winning or had won the war on terror.


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Obama was being gracious towards Bush.. Do you think every administration should break all previous agreements or keep their word?


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



2011? Egypt, Libya and Syria all went to hell in 2011.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> they rose to power because obama pulled troops out to soon and told them when we’d be out.
> 
> 
> why did obama lie?



Because that's what we wanted to hear.  The thing is, we wanted to be out of Iraq, and the Iraqis wanted us gone. Everything else was a Kabuki dance.  

ISIS rose to power because the power-sharing agreement that we had worked out before we left was abandoned by Maliki.  He didn't need the Kurds and Sunnis, so he stopped giving them any share of the oil wealth.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> I woudn't say I am an expert....I mean I just follow the basic news.
> 
> Yes, when Obama took office he was handed a free and stable Iraq, and he failed to renegitate a proper SOFA....announced we were leaving, and ISIS, and other terrorist ran wild....and we had to go back in...but here's the kicker...not just in Iraq...but all over the Middle East...great job Xiden and Obama



No one wanted a SOFA. We wanted out, the Iraqis wanted us gone. 



struth said:


> anyone that doesn't support terrorist and brutal dictators like Saddam certainly does



Uh, guy, we created Bin Laden and Saddam.   The CIA put both of them into power.



struth said:


> 1) those reasons were from Congress, in their authorization for war. Not from Bush. All legit reasons.
> 2) No I am not wrong...Bush was successful in taking out Saddam...he was somewhat successful in helping building the nation, but didn't have enough time, instead the idiot Obama Xiden got elected and dropped the ball.



Uh, guy, let's get real.  Iraq was a profound failure because the generals told Bush that he needed 500,000 troops to secure the country. he said, "Naw, it'll be fine". and went in with only 135,000, and then disbanded the Iraqi Army, creating a whole pool of guys who could make up the new militias that kept up the fight.  The point is, we were STILL fighting five years after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished". 





*Boy, that didn't age well! *



struth said:


> 3)yeah it took a lot of troops...like I said, that wasn't my first choice...not sure if my first choice would have worked or not..but it wasn't my first choice...but nonetheless didn't mean it wasn't a success until Obama and Xiden wasted all we gained with their failed leadership.



Uh, no, Iraq was a profound failure.  We went to war over a lie, lost all the sympathy of the world we had gained after 9/11, and left the country in a half-ass way.   The fact is, most of the troops had been withdrawn by the time Obama got there, with a plan to get most of the rest out. 

We didn't want to be there, the Iraqis didn't want us there. 



struth said:


> 4) yes, I am pleased...that was the main goal...I was sad though when ISIS Mosul...kind of a kick in the face to our servicemen to see Obama and Xiden turn their back on all that gained.



Mosul wasn't our to keep.  The real problem was, Bush spent all that money propping up a new Iraqi Army, and they saw a bunch of guys in pickup trucks approaching, and ran away.




struth said:


> 5) I am not sure what my faith has to do with anything, and why you continue to bring it up...your anti-Catholic bigotry is noted and nothing new in regards to the Dems...sadly



Uh, guy, your POPE denounced the Iraq War. 





__





						CNN.com - Pope condemns any war on Iraq - Jan. 13, 2003
					





					www.cnn.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> 1) those reasons were from Congress, in their authorization for war. Not from Bush.


1441 was drafted by the Bush ADMIN and the UNSC voted unanimously for it to go into effect in NOVEMBER 2002. All Nations understood the casts belli in it and there was no deadline stipulation for SADDAM HUSSEN to lose his FINAL OPPORTUNITY given to comply.  Bush agreed to go the the UNSC. as per the AUMF and the 1441 inspection regime entered Iraq in DECEMBER.

You say “Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.




struth said:


> Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.



That is a lie. Because as I stated. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> Violating 1441 was the only reason for War.


To Which George W BUSH committed the United States of America to PER  the AUMF that Congress passed.

because a ground invasion through the IRAQI desert would debilitate the troops and their vehicles Bush wanted to set a deadline for ending the three months of cooperation with 1441 inspectors on March 17 2003 or wait until September.

Some say a September launch of Preemptive War would not give enough time to bring the victorious glorious military victors to come marching home   and set up the greeted as liberators victory for Iraqis with photo ops for the 2004 re-elect Bush Cheney campaign.

So BUSH pulled the USA OUT of 1441 and  basically attacked Without much of the world behind it.


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > I woudn't say I am an expert....I mean I just follow the basic news.
> ...



Struth, stop and think. Joe is right on every point.


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

surada said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Yep.. the Brits cranked up *Operation Mass Appeal* in 1997 to sell the war on Iraq per Bibi's Clean Break Strategy.. Not  every country fell for it.


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

Operation Mass Appeal - Wikipedia




__





						Operation Mass Appeal - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Operation Mass Appeal was an operation set up by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) in the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was a campaign aimed at planting stories in the media about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. 

The existence of the operation was exposed in December 2003, although officials denied that the operation was deliberately disseminating misinformation. The MI6 operation secretly incorporated the United Nations Special Commission investigating Iraq's alleged stoc


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


how was he being gracious?  He was lying?  Why would he leave Iraq then?  So you think he left knowing the country was in danger and knowing the rise of terrorist and Iranian threats was there?  why?


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

surada said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Not really


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

There is too much evidence that supports the deliberate lies that led up to Bush's invasion of Iraq.. and plenty of evidence that it was in part orchestrated by the dual citizen neo-cons of the PNAC. These are the same people who opposed  the Iran nuclear agreement.



			BBC NEWS | UK | MI6 ran 'dubious' Iraq campaign


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Unless he wanted to install 500,000 peacekeepers I think Obama had to hope for the best. Bush was saying we won when we couldn't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport.

There is too much evidence that supports the deliberate lies that led up to Bush's invasion of Iraq.. and plenty of evidence that it was in part orchestrated by the dual citizen neo-cons of the PNAC. These same people opposed  the Iran nuclear agreement.



			BBC NEWS | UK | MI6 ran 'dubious' Iraq campaign


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > I woudn't say I am an expert....I mean I just follow the basic news.
> ...


1) nope..neither US officials or the Iraqis expect Obama to do what he did Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay (Published 2011)
2) we didn't create them...we certainly supported Saddam against Iran, and Iran against Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war...which turned into a Cold War proxy with the Soviets...ad we funded freedom fighters in Afgan against the Soviet invasiion...but we didn't create them
3) nah...we took out Saddam, and Obama was given a free and stable Iraq
4) Saddam was out, and a free and stable Iraq was given to Obama
5) No it was the Iraqis....until Obama let ISIS take it, Trump helped give it back to the Iraqis
6) Cool....I expect the Pope to be for peace...he's the leader of a Church.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > 1) those reasons were from Congress, in their authorization for war. Not from Bush.
> ...


1) Cool...and the UN said in the Resolution in one voice that Saddam was in violatin when then voted for it.
2) the US Congress said that
3) It was certainly a major reason, but not the only, as the US Congress highlighted for you


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



We invaded Iraq because that's what the Israelis wanted and it was decided before Bush was elected.. Bush had no religious training so he fell ass over tea kettle for the Scofield heresy, He claimed he was fighting Gog and Magog.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Nah, he didn't have to install that many...he could have left the current number.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No one wanted a SOFA. We wanted out, the Iraqis wanted us gone.



Its rather insignificant in the overall scheme of things, but I accept that it was down to negotiating a few thousand trainers staying in IRAQ and Obama was willing to go for that in a non combat role. But the Iraqi side passed laws that a new SOFA had to be approved in Iraq’s parliament and it was never going to pass There if  giving those trainers immunity.

I would have been fine with leaving a few thousand trainers in Iraq but never without immunity which is damn near a mandatory AMERICAN policy that out trooos be given immunity.

And I recall an interview with Petraeus where he said after the ISIS Attack that a few thousand Trainers would have had no impact on that ISIS problem  at all. And he explained to the reporter that Troops in Iraq were basically staying on bases and lost the contact with the Sunni population and because of that they couid not even help alter the underlying ant-Maliki sentiment that gave ISIS an easy foothold into Iraqi cities. Bush’s negotiators caused that. 

Thats the kind of news that struth  cannot seem to find.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


I don't fall for cheap conspiracy theories...in particular when they are based on anti-semitism.


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



ISIS came out of the Sunni remnant of Saddam's government and military.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> Nah, he didn't have to install that many...he could have left the current number.



The current number was zero. You dumb ass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> 1) Cool...and the UN said in the Resolution in one voice that Saddam was in violatin when then voted for it.



When they voted for 1441. 

You dumb ass that is how legalese in international law is written. 

Never the  less couid you show us where the full list of grievances in the US AUMF was also included in 1441.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 5, 2021)

The duopoly strongly supported the war that the duopoly had made unavoidable. Those opposed in "representative" government were very few. Now all see what some of us saw before the cataclysm.


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



OH BS. Read Bibi's Clean Break Strategy, the PNAC letter to Clinton in 1998 and about Operation Mass Appeal.


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



You can't have US troops subject to Iraqi law to be tried in Iraqi courts whether that means 15 or 1500 .


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> Nah, he didn't have to install that many...he could have left the current number.





surada said:


> You can't have US troops subject to Iraqi law to be tried in Iraqi courts whether that means 15 or 1500 .



When Bush was negotiating a SOFA in 2008 the troops were operating under UNSC mandate with immunity which was renewed each year since 2004.

Maliki went behind Bush’s back at the end of 2007 when he sent an official letter to the UNSC Requesting that the mandate for 2008 be the last one.

This gave Maliki leverage over Bush because it forces Bush to scramble to finalize a SOFA that had to be in effect on January 1 2009.

The Iraqis demanded that Iraq be given their due sovereignty over decisions allowing foreign troops on their soil. They did not want to give foreign troops immunity and they would not accept a SOFA wherein Iraqis could  not terminate it unilaterally on an equal basis with the US.

That is significant because that meant  that Iraq beginning in 2009 couid decide for no reason whatsoever to order all US troops out even for no reason at all.

Bush signed the agreement with Iraq in December 2008 on his way out the door to go learn how to paint watercolors.

The Iraqis were reluctant to grant immunity but they did. And the Bush deal I believe was not voted for in the Legislature. Reasons unknown me.

Obama therefore had to negotiate under extremely different conditions. First of all if he did not live up to the terms of the Bush Maliki agreement IRAQ could say go home now.

And immunity was from the  beginning a sticking point.  And the Iraqis insisted that at least this time around any new SOFA starting January 2012 would have to be approved by the Iraqi legislature and it was known politically that immunity was never going to fly.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Nah, he didn't have to install that many...he could have left the current number.
> ...


and then Obama failed to reauthoize the agreement when it was time, bailout for campaign reasons...and turned Iraq over to the terrorist...forcing us back a few years later...all for politics and he couldn't be honest...sad


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

Reauthorize the agreement?

Did Obama Really “Cut and Run” and “Abandon” Iraq to ISIS ...





__





						Did Obama Really “Cut and Run” and “Abandon” Iraq to ISIS? |  History News         Network
					






					historynewsnetwork.org
				




Obama therefore agreed that some US troops needed to be left behind to train and advise Iraqi forces, but Prime Minister Maliki told the American president that he needed to “line up political...

PolitiFact | Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave ...









						PolitiFact - Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says
					

During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President




					www.politifact.com
				




May 18, 2015 · Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a …


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> and then Obama failed to reauthoize the agreement when it was time,



You are a liar. Obama was given no opportunity to re-authorize the Bush Maliki agreement. And troops were down to zero at the end of it.

Read what far more informed, intelligent and honest people than you are posting

From the link that surada  provided: 

“Without this immunity, the Americans decided they could not continue to base US troops in Iraq. The issue of legal protection for US troops in post 2011 Iraq was essentially a deal breaker”​​


surada said:


> Reauthorize the agreement?



Most people know that you are a dumb ass.



surada said:


> Obama therefore agreed that some US troops needed to be left behind to train and advise Iraqi forces, but Prime Minister Maliki told the American president that he needed to “line up political...


Allow  me to finish that. Maliki told the American president that he needed to line up political support to grant immunity to any military forces that would remain in IRAQ beyond January 1, 2012.

A guy named Muqtada al Sadr who is a fiery anti-American SHIITE Cleric and the leader of the faction in parliament that controlled Maliki’s political destiny, basically said giving American solfuers immunity in a new SOFA would be considered an act of war against Iraq.

America does not assign troops on foreign soil without immunity. It was the Iraqis that  refused to negotiate a new SOFA under any circumstances if the USA required immunity in the deal.

I’ll say it again until you prove otherwise “Obama failed to reauthoize the agreement” is a lie. You are a liar.


----------



## surada (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > and then Obama failed to reauthoize the agreement when it was time,
> ...



Maliki had already told Bush that this would be the last SOFA..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections



I called you out for that lie. 

And you confessed it was a lie, here:


struth said:


> but you can't say that he was complying with the inspections outline in the Resolution



Thank you for the confession. So we can be certain that you prone to lying.

But you have not learned your lesson that Good Catholics should not lie - Its one if the Ten Commandments.

But you keep lying any



struth said:


> Nope, they said that Iraq wasn't complying.



I have not seen who “they” is and/or what they said was legally binding to UNSC 1441.

Did I miss it. I’m still looking for it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying



Nothing! Let the inspections continue! That is if you are a member of the George W Bush administration testifying before the United States Senate

- THE JANUARY 27 UNMOVIC AND IAEA REPORTS TO THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ON INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ


HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE    JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying
> ...


I love how that hearing stated "
In my opinion, Iraq has failed to comply with these
requirements and is in material breach of these obligations. "

"
This has been a dramatic week. On Monday, Dr. Blix and Dr.
ElBaradei presented their reports to the U.N. Security Council. On
Tuesday afternoon, the government of the United Kingdom stated that,
based on that report, Iraq was in further material breach.
This has been a dramatic week. On Monday, Dr. Blix and Dr.
ElBaradei presented their reports to the U.N. Security Council. On
Tuesday afternoon, the government of the United Kingdom stated that,
based on that report, Iraq was in further material breach. On Tuesday
evening, President Bush was unequivocal. ``We will consult,'' he said,
``But let there be no misunderstanding. If Saddam Hussein does not
fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the
world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.''
    This situation has just about reached a boiling point, and the
entire world is watching. Rightfully so. This is what Monday's report
told us: since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441,
Iraq's last chance to disarm, Iraq has refused to hand over or destroy
its chemical and biological weapons; Iraq has refused to identify the
location and fate of its considerable stocks of anthrax, botulinum
toxin, VX, sarin, and mustard gas; Iraq has refused to surrender its
mobile biological capabilities, which are essentially germ laboratories
tucked into the back of a Mack truck; and Iraq has refused to account
for tens of thousands of empty--and full--chemical and biological
warheads. And, mind you, these are just the materials and the weapons
we know about, just some of what UNSCOM catalogued in 1999 after
inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. We do not know what Saddam
Hussein may have amassed in the years since.
    This is not some abstract concern. This is a concrete and
significant military capability--one that Saddam Hussein has shown a
willingness to use. And consider that the amount of biological agent
that U.N. inspectors believe Iraq produced--the 25,000 liters of
anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin--is enough to kill tens of
thousands of people. Perhaps far more, depending on how, when and where
it is released. And consider that UNSCOM found more than just the
evidence of bulk biological agents. The inspectors also found that Iraq
had developed effective and efficient means for dispersing these
materials: unmanned aerial vehicles, spray devices, special munitions.
We don't know where any of it is. And the last 60 days of new
inspections have turned up no additional information that could allay
any concerns about this military capability.
    On Monday, Dr. Blix came to the conclusion that ``Iraq appears not
to have come to a genuine acceptance--not even today--of the
disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out
to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.'' The
Department of State shares this conclusion. Iraq has failed to
cooperate actively, and without active cooperation, the peaceful
disarmament of Iraq is not going to be possible. As you have heard us
say, time is running out for the Iraqi regime to remedy this situation.
    The implications are stark. For 12 years, the international
community has demanded that Iraq disarm. And for 12 years, we have
tried to limit the damage that Saddam Hussein could inflict on his
neighbors and on his own people. But throughout this time, Saddam
Hussein has constantly tested and correctly assessed that none of these
measures has any real teeth. That he personally need not pay the price
for any of it. That he need not change any of his behaviors or give up
any of his ambitions. And so despite the international community's
effort, and the inspectors' Herculean effort, Saddam Hussein remains a
threat.
    In effect, the United Nations has tolerated defiance and allowed
the Iraqi regime to retain its devastating military capability for far
too long. Last fall, this situation compelled President Bush to
challenge the international community to take a stand. And the U.N.
Security Council responded by unanimously passing Resolution 1441, a
resolution that dramatically broke with the past. It included tests
that have to be passed and it had teeth."  

"
The presentations we heard on Monday in the Security
Council confirmed that, in spite of the urgency introduced into
Resolution 1441, Iraq did not meet either test. The declaration
was a fundamental test of cooperation and intent, and Iraq
failed it resoundingly." 

----why did you provide us with testimony and statements of things I already told you about?  Yes...we know Iraq was in breach...thanks for reminding me of what I already told you

Oh and this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:
 The administration officials, including the President on 
Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi 
Government maintains ties with members of the al-Qaeda network. 
Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that 
claim?
    And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it 
seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the 
least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum 
tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure 
of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to 
undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be 
true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do 
what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX, 
anthrax, things we know.
    So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if you 
are able to share with us, is there about direct connection 
between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for 
how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the 
evidence we are presenting?
    Mr. Armitage. Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda, 
in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is 
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in 
Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent 
assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was 
apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident 
in Baghdad.
    Having said that, I am not making the case here that this 
is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the 
President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is 
the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief 
that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us 
ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much 
concern. And this will be part of the information that 
Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They 
are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as 
possible to give him a pretty full case.
    On the question of why we spend so much time on things that 
are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on 
the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a 
difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we 
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.
    Senator Biden. I agree, you did.
    Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was 
to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe 
that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a 
conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the 
side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather 
than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take 
your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy, 
``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with 
your----
    Senator Biden. Strongest case.
    Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying
> ...





struth said:


> I thought there were other options available to take out Saddam.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> I love how that hearing stated "
> In my opinion, Iraq has failed to comply with these
> requirements and is in material breach of these obligations. "


Why?

Re: HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE    JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

Dubya did not decide to invade Iraq until After MARCH 10 2003.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > I love how that hearing stated "
> ...


Just highlights what I've been saying all along...Iraq was in breach.


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


I believe there was at least one other option...as I have stated.....


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > like I said, you people don't know shit about wars .
> ...


hahhahaha--that's a very childish and idiotic argument


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > , when Obama took office he was handed a free and stable Iraq, and he failed to renegitate a proper SOFA
> ...


..like I said, you don't know shit
....we are STILL in Korea!!!!!!!!!!!!  spending $$$$$$--same with Germany .....
...Iraq and Afghanistan are not conventional wars......not like WW2


----------



## struth (May 5, 2021)

harmonica said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


He certainly knew how to end the usual endless wars Obama and Xiden started.


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying
> ...


...you don't know what a cease fire means..please go learn what it means


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> The duopoly strongly supported the war that the duopoly had made unavoidable. Those opposed in "representative" government were very few. Now all see what some of us saw before the cataclysm.


1. the US had every right to go into Iraq
2. it's no failure as Korea was not either--Iraq War is not a failure


----------



## JoeB131 (May 5, 2021)

struth said:


> 1) nope..neither US officials or the Iraqis expect Obama to do what he did


Really? Obama ran on "I'm going to get us out of Iraq" in 2008.  You mean people were actually surprised he did what he said he was going to do?  



struth said:


> 2) we didn't create them...we certainly supported Saddam against Iran, and Iran against Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war...which turned into a Cold War proxy with the Soviets...ad we funded freedom fighters in Afgan against the Soviet invasiion...but we didn't create them



You really need to educate yourself on the 1959 coup that brought Saddam to power and the CIA's involvement with him  While you are at it, you might want to look up how the CIA recruited young Arabs to fight in Afghanistan because they didn't have enough people who spoke Pushtan and Uzbek.  Why learn complex tribal dynamics when you can just find Arab religious fanatics to kill Russians for you, and there's no way that can backfire in your face.  


struth said:


> 3) nah...we took out Saddam, and Obama was given a free and stable Iraq


Are you some kind of retard that you think repeating the same debunked point makes it true?


struth said:


> 4) Saddam was out, and a free and stable Iraq was given to Obama








struth said:


> ) No it was the Iraqis....until Obama let ISIS take it, Trump helped give it back to the Iraqis



Uh, Trump gave it to the Iranians... 


struth said:


> 6) Cool....I expect the Pope to be for peace...he's the leader of a Church.



Uh, he's the leader of YOUR Chruch, the guy you think has a direct line to God.


----------



## Batcat (May 5, 2021)

I was all for it ...

*Providing there proof was found that Saddam Hussein actually did have weapons of mass destruction such as nukes or chemical or biological weapons. *


----------



## Dogmaphobe (May 5, 2021)

I opposed the war.

 I opposed it because I understand the primitive nature of Islamic Arab culture enough to realize there are only two possible forms of governence for these severely inbred people. THey either live under a ruthless, strong armed leader who is capable of keeping a lid on the crazies or be ruled by the crazies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> I am sorry...1441 stated that Iraq was in violation of Resolution 687. Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't






struth said:


> The only question was what to do about it.






struth said:


> Just highlights what I've been saying all along...Iraq was in breach.






struth said:


> Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections






struth said:


> Blix was the guy that testified and reported Iraq continued not to comply





struth said:


> The US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"






struth said:


> He didn't...as Brix testified and reported. Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents.





struth said:


> I am not sure how much more clear Brix could have been for you...even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.





struth said:


> Your defense of Saddam's half hearted joke of "compliance" is a failed attempt to rewrite history.





struth said:


> Nope, they said that Iraq wasn't complying.
> 
> But yes, they disagreed with the United States and others on how to handle it. We can certainly discuss that, but you can't argue they were allowing inspections in complaince with the Resolution. They weren't.





struth said:


> I simply stated the fact....the UN found Saddam was not complying with the inspections that were required by the Resolution.





struth said:


> How am I a sicko now? Where have I once suggested we should have gone to war?
> 
> I have provided the testimony and links to reports from Brix. Direct quotes.
> 
> and obviously the UN voted he wasn't in complaince. I am not sure what else you wa





struth said:


> The reason the UN inspectors were removed is because Saddam had violated the UN Resolution and Bush, along with other nations moved to enforce the Resoltuion.






Blix never determined that Iraq was in a material Breach of 1441. Why must you constantly lie about that?

You said  the UN voted he wasn't in compliance . That is a lie. The UNSC never held a second vote on 1441 following a Blix report .

You say the reason the UN inspectors were removed is because Saddam had violated the UN Resolution but that is not true either. In the following hearing on January 30 2003 many US Senators expressed opinions 60 days into the 1441  that Iraq was in Material Breach of that Resolution. But not one word of stopping the inspection process.

Senator Joe Biden explained to Amb Negroponte about the  higher standard of proof needed to terminate inspections and territory to  war: 

Senator Biden: In the legal sense, it is clear that Iraq is in material breach, but the court of international opinion is not a court of law. You have to meet a higher standard of proof--not legally have to meet it, but practically--to enhance our
greater interest. We have to meet a higher standard of proof in order to convince the Security Council and the thousands and
thousands of people out there, or millions, who do not understand and are not ready to believe.

But with all the early talk about material breach and splitting hairs over cooperation on process vs cooperation on substance *the Bush White House on January 30 did not decide that an invasion into Iraq was necessary to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.*

Mr. Armitage written: *The president was clear on Tuesday. He has not yet made a decision to resort to military action.*

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE    JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying



*In this hearing;  *HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE    JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

The Bush White House answered the question you posed at what to do about the lack of immediate cooperation from Saddam Hussein after a full sixty days into the 1441 inspection regime .

There was not sufficient threat to require a US Military ground invasion of Iraq. Peacefully disarming Iraq shall continue under RESOLUTION 1441.

That was officially written and given as testimony in the above referenced Hearing.

Mr. Armitage written: The president was clear on Tuesday. He has not yet made a decision to resort to military action.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

Dogmaphobe said:


> I opposed it because I understand the primitive nature of Islamic Arab culture enough to realize there are only two possible forms of governence for these severely inbred people. THey either live under a ruthless, strong armed leader who is capable of keeping a lid on the crazies or be ruled by the crazies.


Did you vote for Dubya in 2004? Just wondering. When Trump said Dubya lied us into that war, he was a political genius doing that to attract hundreds of thousands of Republican Islamophobes like yourself.


----------



## beautress (May 6, 2021)

Lesh said:


> For those of you too stupid or too dishonest to remember or check history, Iraq was a Bush initiative. Pure and simple.
> 
> Dems were forced into defensive votes to approve something they could not stop. They were overwhelmingly for a cautious approach.
> 
> Those Dems who voted against it were almost universally voted out of office. Note Max Cleland (a war vet who lost multiple limbs in Vietnam) who was called a terrorist and voted out.


Did I support a war that Saddam Hussein inspired by murdering 30 villages of Kurdish ancestry with a WOMD known as Sarin gas?

The Saddam Hussein that immediately bequeathed his sons a rape room apiece as their coming of age gift?

The Saddam Hussein that upon taking power from his deceased uncle had a meeting with Iraq's Representatives and after giving a speech asked who liked his plans. Frightened because he was known to be a bully half of them raised their hands in solidarity. Then he gave each of them a gun and ordered each to shoot and kill one of the ones who did not raise their hand in support of him. Many of the supporters could not kill their fellow legislator as ordered so when all was said and done, Saddam murdered the ones who did not shoot his nonsupporters. In all 174 legislators were shot and killed that day. That Saddam Hussein?

The Saddam Hussein that invaded his neighbor Kuwait who were strong U.S. allies, executing 10,000 of them in the process?



The Saddam Hussein that would kill an entire family and hang all of them on the walls of Baghdad if one of their family members criticized his authority?

The Saddam Hussein who paid families a generous amount for acts of violence against Israelis and twice that if they killed an American?

The Saddam Hussein that supported AlQaeda when Afganistan made them leave?

Why yes. Yes I did support our troops who found mass graves in those Kurdish ghost towns among other things.

Yes it was time to deal with the madman who invaded and murdered almost a million Iranians including children after harvesting only beautiful women for his rape rooms.

And do I recall the reason Saddam murdered his Iranian neighbors? Well all he wanted was 25 square miles of beachfront on the border between Iraq and Iran.

I'm going on memory of reading Madeline Albright's state department files on Hussein and her warnings about visiting Iraq plus a few gems above. I also read the files on the Bush/Cheney era as it looked like Saddam Hussein grew more and more hostile to Americans who prevented him from paying for their slaughter by Palestinian families who sent suicide bombers to kill as many Israelis as possible again with double the price for every American the suicide bombers took out.

So yeah I did support Dubya's war against the madman of Iraq. And I'd support it again if another such monster came upon the world scene. Dubya did the Muslims a favor by ridding them of a man who killed more muslims than anyone else in history. If I'm not mistaken Saddam Hussein's unneighborly kills totaled a million and his murders inside iraq was said to be half a million.

The Demmies hated Dubya because he never failed to do the right thing. They lied their asses off about Dubya with a similar venom as they used on Trump.

Democrats are weak sisters on foreign affairs. They think not standing up to bullies brings peace. Not!

Now the Demmies have devolved into criminality against taxpayers having gotten Biden to scrounge up a hidden and an illegal source for campaign cash involving foreign aid scamming by Joseph Biden's extortion of 3rd world countries for billions and billions of dollars.

I wonder what state department files are like today?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

beautress said:


> Did I support a war


I don’t know. You tell us if you are a dumbass?


TRUMP: “This will be a big week for Infrastructure. After so stupidly spending $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is now time to start investing in OUR Country!” — tweet.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war

TRUMP: “I said this morning as of a couple months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East — $7 trillion. What a mistake. And — but it is what it is. This is what I took over. And we’re trying to build roads and bridges and fix bridges that are falling down. And we have a hard time getting the money. It’s crazy. But think of that as of a couple months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East, and the Middle East is far worse now than it was 17 years ago when they went in, and not so intelligently, I have to say, went in.” — remarks at White House infrastructure even

The Pentagon estimates that wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have directly cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.5 trillion. Actual costs are higher.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war

Boston University political scientist Neta C. Crawford, as co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University, estimated that as of September, U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria — plus additional spending on homeland security, the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department since the 2001 terrorist attacks — cost more than $4.3 trillion.

That rises to an estimated $5.6 trillion or more when anticipated future spending on veterans and other factors related to the wars so far are added.


----------



## beautress (May 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > Did I support a war
> ...


You Democrats must be desperate using scatological language on old women. You are going on my ignore list for your nasty mouth. Bye.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> Oh and this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:


A case for a Second Resolution at the Security Council.


Senator Biden: In the legal sense, it is clear that Iraq is in material breach, but the court of international opinion is not a court of law. You have to meet a higher standard of proof--not legally have to meet it, but practically--to enhance our 
greater interest. We have to meet a higher standard of proof in order to convince the Security Council and the thousands and 
thousands of people out there, or millions, who do not understand and are not ready to believe.

Senator Biden: Some may ask why it matters what other countries think. I am sure I will get phone calls and letters saying, ``What the--Biden, what are you talking about, caring what these other 
countries think? We're America. What does it matter what they think?'' Well, it matters a great deal. It matters because, 
while we can do this alone, while we are fully capable of doing this alone, we are so much better off--so much better off--if 
we do it with others.


Senator Biden: Having others with us increases our chance of success. And 
by success, I mean not just taking down Saddam. That is not the measure of success. The measure of success is, if we take him down, if need be, we gather up and destroy the weapons of mass 
destruction, and we are assured that there is a government in place that is not likely to reconstitute the menace and threat. 
That is a gigantic undertaking that exceeds merely the military operation.


Senator Biden: And it also, if we have others with us, decreases the risk 
and lowers the cost, and it invests others in the complicated matter of the day after, or, more appropriately, in my view, 
the decade after. And it does not make us a target of every terrorist and malcontent in the world if we are not doing this 
alone. It matters. It matters, in terms of our naked self-interest.


Senator Biden: Gentlemen and ladies of this committee, understand we are about to embark in a commitment of ``nation building.'' Our warriors will not only win and fight wars; they will be required to build a nation, or at least reconstruct a government. And the American people do not understand that. I am confident they are willing to bear this burden if it is 
explained to them. They should not be surprised when, 2 years after this war is over, they see tens of thousands, or 
thousands of American forces, American troops in Iraq, some of whom being shot at guarding oil wells, some of whom are going to be on a border and going to end up being killed trying to secure that border so Iranians do not think they can have part of northern Iraq and the Kurds do not think they can move into Kirkuk, and so on and so forth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

beautress said:


> ou Democrats must be desperate using scatological language on old women. You are going on my ignore list for your nasty mouth. Bye.


GOODBYE IF YOU STILL CANT SEE THE DEATH DESTRUCTION and HUMAN TORMENT GWB caused by  the stupid decision that GWB made in March 2003 - who  needs to communicate with you.,


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2021)

Saddam Hussein was inexecrable. What went on in Iraq was horrible. 
A great power, with world wide responsibilities, does not make decisions based upon mere sentiment. An intelligent leader does not enter into a bad situation that he knows he will only make worse. Many of us knew that an illegal invasion was a bad idea. Many of us knew pre-emptive war was an un-American concept. We also knew that the Middle East would not be made better nor national security improved by such action. This was obvious to any objective thinker.
The "Bush League" plunged into their short-sighted adventure for reasons both obvious and obscure. They achieved calamity. They are war criminals. Those who supported these actions by voting for it in the halls of Congress share this onus. America and the world suffer and struggle under the burden they thrust upon us. We owe ourselves the honesty to admit this and confront the reality. Childish as America so often is, this is exactly what has not been done.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2021)

Dogmaphobe said:


> I opposed the war.
> 
> I opposed it because I understand the primitive nature of Islamic Arab culture enough to realize there are only two possible forms of governence for these severely inbred people. THey either live under a ruthless, strong armed leader who is capable of keeping a lid on the crazies or be ruled by the crazies.



Uh, after we let Trump be president, we don't get to criticize how anyone else runs their government.  

Most of histories worst dictators have been WHITE PEOPLE. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Putin, well, you get the idea.  

But, no, no, they're the bad ones...


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:
> ...


Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > 1) nope..neither US officials or the Iraqis expect Obama to do what he did
> ...


1) Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay (Published 2011)
Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay​2) i have...I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran.  Saddam didn't come to power until the late 70s
3) I am just repeating what Obama said
4) Just repeating what Obama said
5) sorry...Trump was just a citizen when Obama was in office
6) True, but he is not the leader of my Govt.  My faith and Govt are two different things


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain



Except Iraq wasn't "Free" or "Stable" when Obama took over.  it was a fucking mess we were paying the Iraqis to leave us alone while we left.  

But let's pretend it was.   That would mean any failures that happened AFTER we left were on the Iraqi government, not us.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> 1) Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay (Published 2011)
> Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay​2) i have...I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Saddam didn't come to power until the late 70s
> 3) I am just repeating what Obama said
> 4) Just repeating what Obama said






Saddam came to power in 1959 with the coup that overthrew Qasim.   He was the power behind the throne with the dictator that preceded him, and he was the CIA's guy.  



struth said:


> 6) True, but he is not the leader of my Govt. My faith and Govt are two different things



How can they be?  Either you think the Pope has a line to talking to God or you don't. If God and the Pope said the war was wrong, that should be your position as well.


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay (Published 2011)
> ...


There was no coup in 1959...there was in 1958...and that is when Qasim came to power...he was killed in 1963.  Saddam was a member of the opposition, but the CIA had no direct involvment in the 1963 coup....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan_Revolution#cite_note-FOOTNOTECitino2017218-219,_222-11

"While there have been persistent rumors that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) orchestrated the coup, declassified documents and the testimony of former CIA officers indicate there was no direct American involvement, although the U.S. had been notified of two aborted Ba'athist coup plots in July and December 1962 and its post-coup actions suggested that "at best it condoned and at worst it contributed to the violence that followed."[10][11][12] Despite evidence that the CIA had been closely tracking the Ba'ath Party's coup planning since "at least 1961," a CIA official working with Archie Roosevelt Jr. to instigate a military coup against Qasim, and who later became the head of the CIA's operations in Iraq and Syria, has "denied any involvement in the Ba'ath Party's actions," stating instead that the CIA's efforts against Qasim were still in the planning stages at the time."

I have a direct line to God too.  The Pope is the head of the Church, who's authority comes directly from God.    God certainly wants peace, I have no doubt about that.  But God is so great he gave his children free-will.   If you have questions about the Catholic faith, and war...talk with Xiden...he's alledgely a Catholic and has voted for and supported far more wars then anyone I know on Earth today


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > I opposed the war.
> ...


What an incredibly fatuous thing to say. It is in fact painfully racist as well.
We could start with, how is "dictator" defined and how could they be compared? 
If what you are so poorly trying to say is that horrible people have held absolute power and that the worst were "white" (whatever that means), then you are also incredibly poorly informed.
There are many good arguments against racism. There are many good arguments for improving society. There are already far too many errors in circulation in regards to these. Your contributions to those errors are unnecessary.


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

Batcat said:


> I was all for it ...
> 
> *Providing there proof was found that Saddam Hussein actually did have weapons of mass destruction such as nukes or chemical or biological weapons.
> *


*

Saddam didn't want to show weakness to Iran, but Iraq was basically crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions.. Easy picking as it were.*


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


With a "direct line to God", you are doing all of us a disservice wasting you time here. Serious work needs to be done with what is going on in the world. Get busy!


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

Dogmaphobe said:


> I opposed the war.
> 
> I opposed it because I understand the primitive nature of Islamic Arab culture enough to realize there are only two possible forms of governence for these severely inbred people. THey either live under a ruthless, strong armed leader who is capable of keeping a lid on the crazies or be ruled by the crazies.



How do you know Arab culture?


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


When did I say I didn't do service work?  I am very involved in my community and do a lot of community service.  I fail to see how me being able to pray to God, somehow draws your conclusion that I don't do community service work?   My church, which I admit, I am not active in, does a lot of community service work as well.


----------



## Desperado (May 6, 2021)

Bottom line is we were conned and lied to so we could involve the US in a war where we did not belong.  The US had no business in Iraq at any point in time.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Apparently, you can add my post to the list of things you didn't understand.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2021)

Dogmaphobe said:


> I opposed the war.
> 
> I opposed it because I understand the primitive nature of Islamic Arab culture enough to realize there are only two possible forms of governence for these severely inbred people. THey either live under a ruthless, strong armed leader who is capable of keeping a lid on the crazies or be ruled by the crazies.


So, essentially, the difference between that culture and America is that the duopoly takes the place just one "leader".


----------



## Dogmaphobe (May 6, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > I opposed the war.
> ...




Are you actually suffering from such delusions that you think it is common for us to marry our cousins?


----------



## Lesh (May 6, 2021)

beautress said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you too stupid or too dishonest to remember or check history, Iraq was a Bush initiative. Pure and simple.
> ...


There's lots of really bad leaders out there. Would you support taking them all out?


----------



## beautress (May 6, 2021)

Lesh said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


Oh ya? And which of those "really bad leaders out there" is as horrific as Saddam who made an attempt on the life of a President of the United States in addition to senselessly murdered 1,500,000 people during his or her reign of terror not to mention giving double pay to any arab who murdered a United States citizen do you have in mind, Mr. Smarty Party?

Oh I get it. You cannot for the life of you recall his name and which people he poisoned with such a WOMD as Sarin gas. Do tell toots. Oh and killed a million human  beings over coveting a 25 square mile beachfront for pleasures by the sea?

You Demmies sound believable but when it comes down to facts your brain is Jello in a minute. List facts and names or go stand in the corner junior.


----------



## Lesh (May 6, 2021)

beautress said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...


So we should have gone into Rwanda? Cambodia? Serbia? How about Qaddafi? He shot down an American plane over Lockerbie.

How do you feel about Putin or Duterte?

Great guys all huh?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain



Since Iraq was in all appearance as free and stable and perhaps more so as it was in December 2008 when DUBYA handed off the US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project that you support to this day, Oh Catholic man,  hear ye this:

In 2003 Biden warned  Bush’s officials in the JANUARY 30 Senate HEARING not to do REGIME CHANGE in haste and unprepared for nation building and not without the world and the United Nations with you and committed 100 percent.

So when you say that Biden turned his back on Bush’s  nation building project in 2009 You must be nuts

You keep saying the “US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project” turned out to be a huge success that was handed off to Obama and Biden in 2009. So a big part of that nation building success was for Biden and Obama being able to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by 2011.

So they did the correct follow through on nation building and the United nations were behind them.

You have cherry picked things that Biden  said in that January 30 hearing to identify him as a warmonger for supporting what Bush decided to do. To do as Biden warned in haste, not prepared and without worldwide support.

So tell me what did Biden turn his back on by throwing combat troops remain free and stable Iraq and respect for the sovereignty that was agonizingly achieved in 2008?  Agonizingly because Bush did not listen to Joe Biden in 2003 as he would have been wise to do. Let the injectors have more time to be certain the evidence for a case of justifying preemptive regime change is rock solid sand the case for war has worldwide support.

Biden was ignored and Bush lied to invade

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE    JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1



struth Yesterday at 1:13 PM



> And this exchange with Xiden...where  Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:
> 
> The administration officials, including the President on Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
> Government maintains ties with members
> ...





> what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX, anthrax, things we know.So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if youare able to share with us, is there about direct connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the evidence we are presenting?
> 
> Mr. Armitage:  Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda, in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
> harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent  assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident in Baghdad.
> ...




You are a liar because you wholeheartedly support to this very day, Bush’s unnecessary decision on March 17 2003 to unilaterally remove 200 UNSC weapons inspections to launch a ground invasion to depose Saddam HUSSEIN in the false grounds that chec was actively at the time ..  as quoted “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

beautress said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...



LOLOL Operation Mass Appeal certainly got its money's worth with you.


----------



## beautress (May 6, 2021)

Lesh said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


Qaddafi is dead. I didn't see your list of his criminal activities nor how many domestic deaths and deaths of his neighbors. No access to Obama's State Department? Another deep state secret hm? Well well well.


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

Dogmaphobe said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...



That's rare these days.

Consanguinity Among the Arab and Jewish Populations in ...








						Consanguinity among the Arab and Jewish populations in Israel - PubMed
					

Consanguineous marriages are associated with many problems, although the prevailing opinion is that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. This explains why the custom is still extremely prevalent, particularly in Arab countries, India and small isolated communities. Among Israeli Arabs...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				



Consanguinity Among the Arab and Jewish Populations in Israel Consanguineous marriages are associated with many problems, although the prevailing opinion is that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. This explains why the custom is still extremely prevalent, particularly in Arab countries, India and small isolated communities.


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

beautress said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...



Read Clean Break Strategy.. That's why we overthrew Saddam.


----------



## beautress (May 6, 2021)

surada said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


HOW sophomoric can you get, doll. Did you have pictures on the net heralding what your partner in misinformation slathered out of his keyboard? Pictures accompanying Bill Clinton's State Department and Dubya's were all over the net as proofs. Of course you don't. The deep state Demonrats make up narratives which is why you saw nothing to raise an eyebrow and the Commie team of the current administration does not want us to see nothing because their word is their wand er I mean bond.  /snicker


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

beautress said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...



Bibi Netanyahu isn't a Democrat.


----------



## beautress (May 6, 2021)

surada said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


IOW you don't remember the details enough to put forth any facts names deeds head counts etc. I'm not going to do your debate for you. Cough up the details from your memory banks or you will have to trick somebody else with the claim that there were leaders as bad. Give your own brain a review for your debate, hun, or you'll have to find another debate partner who is willing to carry your load for you.So far your debate has less facts in it than a squirrel's horde of acorns from last fall.


----------



## beautress (May 6, 2021)

surada said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Bibi did nothing wrong. Your failure to deliver facts is what's wrong. You are scared of using your memory to back your cause which at this point is about as clear as mud. Lazy debaters are as boring as it gets. You got nothin.' Bye.


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

beautress said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > beautress said:
> ...



What do you think Operation Mass Appeal was about?

*A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James*


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain
> ...


The transcript show  that Xiden wanted regime change in Iraq. 

I don't really know if Iraq was more or less free and stable in 08, then 2011.  Doesn't really matter.  All I know is in 2011 Obama said it was.


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Please post the Biden quote from the text.


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...











						Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion
					

At a 1998 Senate hearing, Biden argued that “taking this son of a — taking Saddam down” was the only way to guarantee Iraq’s disarmament.




					theintercept.com
				




You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. *You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down*,” Biden said. “You know it and I know it.”

The video is in the article  Not just regime change, but ground troops


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



From your link.

Biden, to be sure, was not a full-throated advocate for the war on Bush’s terms, and throughout the fall, worked with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization, that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program. But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders, and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who pushed ahead with Bush’s broader resolution. “I was angry,” Biden later said, according to “Hubris.” “I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another man’s political judgment.”

Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq, unlike some of his Republican colleagues. In February 1998, the News Journal of Wilmington reported that Biden saw invasion as unlikely.

Though some Republicans have urged the military to remove Saddam from power entirely, Biden said there was little will for that in Congress. Such a move would require a bloody ground war, the use of 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops, and some kind of continuing presence in Iraq while a new government is installed, he said.


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


and then he voted for it, because the will of Congress was there in 2001....and when he had the power, as VP to deal with occupying part after the success of taking out Saddam..he choked. 

But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> and then he voted for it,


 You are a liar. Biden did not vote for war in October 2002. He voted to give Bush the authority to decide if war was necessary. So quit lying repeating the same crap.


----------



## surada (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



The US military brass told Bush he needed 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops. Don't you remember? Bush decided to go with what he had. Such imbeciles ..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.


It was Bush who decided that it was necessary to remove him. It was not Biden. Biden is not the decider.

as far as removing Saddam with ground troops when Biden was telling the Bush administration is that you can’t just take out Saddam Hussain you have to build a nation to replace it or things will be worse if you just take him out and leave. That’s what Bush didn’t understand that’s why Bush did not get  the world community behind him and he didn’t go for the second resolution at the UNSC  to make it all legitimate.

Biden believed that if Bush  got a second resolution and lined up the entire world community behind him and weapons inspectors found definite evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD from the inspectors, a real serious material breach of the UN security council resolution, then the international pressure and threat of war  was going to be for Saddam Hussein to resign. Change without war. It’s an alternative a warmonger like you can’t like. No killing involved.


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > and then he voted for it,
> ...


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.  Dude...it's Public Law...Xiden voted to authorize the President to use the military.  

Just stop with your lies


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.
> ...


Well yeah Bush made the ulimate decision, and was for it...just like Xiden.  Bush couldn't of done it though without Xiden voting for him to have the authority to do so.


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


and we have sent a lot more then that....as of 2007, and I am sure the number is bigger now: 





__





						OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM AND OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM: DEMOGRAPHICS AND IMPACT - Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan - NCBI Bookshelf
					





					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




Since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001, over 1.9 million US military personnel have been deployed in 3 million tours of duty lasting more than 30 days as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Dude...it's Public Law...Xiden voted to authorize the President to use the military.
> 
> Just stop with your lies



I said that you ignorant liar.I said the full sentence which includes the two words that make the distinction between Bush and Biden “if necessary”

(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.

and Bush did not enforce all relevant United Nations security council resolutions regarding Iraq that was required in the AUMF.  Bush defied and went around you and SC1441 because in a few more months of weapons inspections it would’ve been found that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction stock piles. ZERO. Outcome is the invasion and $7 Trillion wasted according to trump and 4500 American lives to find out. Zero. Call for nothing and you Support it.


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Dude...it's Public Law...Xiden voted to authorize the President to use the military.
> ...


Yes, Xiden gave the President authoization to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary...very broad power they gave Bush...which isn't uncommon when the Congress authorizes war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> Yes, Xiden gave the President authoization to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary...very broad power they gave Bush...



(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 -

you believe these two Expression mean the same thing?

struth @to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary”

AUMF: “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines *to be necessary* and appropriate in order to ....


Why did you feel the need to change it?


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Xiden gave the President authoization to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary...very broad power they gave Bush...
> ...


i didn’t i literally copied it right of the law.

congress have the president authorization to use the military against iraq as he deemed necessary


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.


If Bush determined it to be necessary and appropriate... and peaceful means (became 1441 inspections) would not lead to IRAQ’s compliance with all UNSC Resolutions against Iraq. Iraq was not hiding WMD - Bush lied to you and to Biden and to the entire world. And Trump  knows Bush lied and wasted all Those  Lives and dollars. And you don’t object to Bush’s lies at all. Now you even lie about the wording of the AUMF




struth said:


> Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Dude...it's Public Law...Xiden voted to authorize the President to use the military.



as he determines *to be necessary*



struth said:


> Well yeah Bush made the ulimate decision, and was for it..



But he fucking lied that SH was hiding WMD as he made that decision.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

There was no WMD being hidden.




struth said:


> Bush couldn't of done it though without Xiden voting for him to have the authority to do so.



Bush said he could do it based on the War in Terrorism authorization and there was no need to go through the UN at all. But Tony Blair cannot join Bush without going through the UN first.

Most Democrats in speeches on the floor when they voted for the AUMF that they consider it a vote for the best opportunity to avoid war. But they needed to join Bush to be with one voice to make sure that Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm peacefully.

In October 2002 when the vote to authorize military force if necessary was taken, the convincing part to get Democrats on board was that Bush said he would go through the UN and get another resolution. I’ve explained this before. Through the summer of 2002 and into the fall the push for war by the bush administration said they believed they had authority, they  were authorized to remove Saddam Hussein based on the broad war on terror authorization.

Cheney and Wolfowitz  all the hard core neocons we’re pushing Bush to reject Colin Powell!s Preference to go through the UN and try to get a resolution forcing tough inspections for a last chance to disarm IRAQ peacefully. Cheney would have none of it. But Bush  had a problem. Tony Blair needed to go through the UN to get a last chance for a peaceful Resolution.

So Bush rejected Cheney and went with Pand told the Democrats that he wanted to avoid war and the best way to do it was for them to authorize him to use military force if Saddam Hussein would not allow inspectors back in. The rest is history. When you leave all this out you’re nothing but a liar.




struth said:


> Yes, Xiden gave the President authoization to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary..



The AUMF is worded supporting Bush’s promise to go through the UN and get a resolution for new tough inspections. That became 1441. Saddam allow the inspectors in. Much to Cheney’s chagrin I’m sure. Every Democrat that voted for the AUMF did so because they believed the threat of military force was all It V would take to finally peacefully disarm Iraq.





struth said:


> .very broad power they gave Bush...which isn't uncommon when the Congress authorizes war.






NotfooledbyW said:


> you believe these two Expression mean the same thing?
> 
> @struth @to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary”
> 
> ...





struth said:


> i didn’t i literally copied it right of the law.



from the Bible?



struth said:


> congress have the president authorization to use the military against iraq as he deemed necessary


If necessary.


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.
> ...


yes xiden voted to allow bush to use the military against iraq as he deemed necessary...pretty common for the congress to be so broad when voting for war.  they aren’t going to micromanage the war once they authorize it

i copied off the congressial website


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> i copied off the congressial website


Link for verification?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> Just stop twisting....it's the libtards that flip flopped and pretend now they were against it, when for years they were all for it.



What precisely is the “flop flop by Joe Biden that you believe you discovered?

..also you posted the AUMF here, I checked, you did change the wording to feed your lies.


----------



## struth (May 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Just stop twisting....it's the libtards that flip flopped and pretend now they were against it, when for years they were all for it.
> ...


i said libtards.

the ones that are acting like they were against regime change


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> i said libtards.
> 
> the ones that are acting like they were against regime change


Do you have any specifics?

Your first post:




struth said:


> Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too




I thought you were talking about Joe, Chuck and Nancy.

Joe didn’t flip flop on regime change if you are talking about Juniors 2003 ill-prepared hasty little backed lie-based invasion for regime change in Iraq.

so I doubt you know what the hell you are talking about.

your second post on this thread:



struth said:


> hahahha what BS....they voted to authorize the us of military force in Iraq...there was NOT one stipulation about going to the UN....not that it would ever be necessary...but in fact one of the main factors was the fact they voted to liberate Iraq, a few years earlier during the Clinton admin


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 6, 2021)

struth said:


> The Iraq War was a success, even Obama acknowledge he was handed a free and stable Iraq....sad he handed it over to Iran and ISIS



Nope - in 2003  Shiite Militias entered Iraq from Iran breathing the exhaust fumes of American invaders’ vehicles as they rolled into Bagdad - Bush had one of their letters welcomed in the White House.




NotfooledbyW said:


> Here's the photo;
> 
> ↑
> *President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*
> ...



You’ve a lot to learn. The lying blocks your chances.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> The issue with Iraq was Obama was just a weak leader


When Obama said Bush doing a regime change in Iraq will be a dumb war and he opposes dumb wars was he being a weak leader?

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.​
“That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.​
“Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. “He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.​
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.​
Obama's Speech Opposing The Iraq War​
“I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. “So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.​
“You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work,​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> We didn't withdraw in 2008



We started withdrawing in 2008 because Iraq was Dubya’s free and stable.nation building success. 



struth said:


> The Iraq War was a success, before Obama took office.



To achieve success, Bush did the great SURGE.

Did you support the SURGE?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> He didn't need UN approval to invade..he had the US Congressional approval.



Dubya did not get US Congressional Approval.. He was given Congressional authority to use military force as he determines TO BE NECESSARY.

Dubya lied about why it was necessary and Biden did not approve of the date chosen or the puny size of the coalition.  No member of Congress like Joe Biden had an obligation to approve of being lied to and making a flawed decision on timimg if kicking out the inspections.

More important than that,  Dubya did not need the Congressional authority he received in  October 2002.

In a March 2003 letter to Congress announcing the start of the U.S. invasion, Bush quoted the 2001 AUMF: “_That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, *in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism* against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons._


----------



## surada (May 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The issue with Iraq was Obama was just a weak leader
> ...



Great post.. You know your subject.


----------



## struth (May 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't need UN approval to invade..he had the US Congressional approval.
> ...


haha you keep changing the words...he certianly got Congressional approval









						H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
					

Summary of H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002



					www.congress.gov
				




Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

"*Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: *(1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution."


----------



## struth (May 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > i said libtards.
> ...


Yep those are examples of libtards that flipped flopped.


----------



## struth (May 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > We didn't withdraw in 2008
> ...


there is withdrawing some troops...and completely leaving as Obama did. 

Yes...it worked...we saw a drop in violence after the surge.  On the surge: "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams,"  Obama- 2007


----------



## struth (May 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The issue with Iraq was Obama was just a weak leader
> ...


Cool...that has zero to do with the discussion.  Obama's opposition to the war prior to Xiden and Congress's approval of it, has zero to do with the fact he screwed up in 2011


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> Obama and Xiden's foreign policy blunder was unable to extend our SOFA, and then announced when we'd be leaving...



How does Obama force a free and stable nation to grant immunity to US troops if a free and stable nation refuses to grant immunity because a free and stable nation has every  right to refuse to grant immunity and that is why the free and stable Iraq did not negotiate on immunity       .

And you say you are opposed to nation building with US ground troops in 2003 but you want Obama to nation build in 2012 using ground troops in Iraq without immunity. Why is that? Why would you demand that of our ground troops be in Iraq without immunity. 

You ought to be praising Obama for being such a wise young politician in 2003 when he said invading Iraq would be a dumb thing for Bush to to do. So I ask you once again:
​NFBW: When Obama said Bush doing a regime change in Iraq will be a dumb war and he opposes dumb wars was he being a weak leader?​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> Cool...that has zero to do with the discussion. Obama's opposition to the war prior to Xiden and Congress's approval of it, has zero to do with the fact he screwed up in 2011



“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

Do you believe the CONGRESS  authorized Dubya to lie to the world? 

Biden did not approve Bush’s decision to launch an ill-prepared invasion on MARCH 18 without giving the world community the most powerful convincing evidence that Iraq was “hiding” something from 1441 inspections.

So your comment contains a lie. You must re-word  it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> Yes...it worked...we saw a drop in violence after the surge.


So you approved and supported Bush’s decision to put 30,000 US Military troops in harms way to nation build in Iraq in 2006? Is that correct?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> Yep those are examples of libtards that flipped flopped.



You bring up Biden. You are a liar when you accuse Biden of flip flopping on regime change in Iraq.

You cannot grow intellectually when you continue to deliberately lie like that. Don’t you ever want to get out of your “Too Stupid to Exist” shallow existence?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (May 7, 2021)

surada said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


 More of your Taqiyya.  I can't even recall a single posting from you that wasn't a lie. 










						Cousin marriage in the Middle East - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> .thus leaving the door open for ISIS and Iran to pick apart the newly formed Govt...


Wait a minute catholic dude, Do you not grasp or even marginally comprehend the religious aspect the Sunni Shiite  split on the political and societal situation in Iraq?

Butch took the Sunnis,  a religious minority,  out of power when he “dumbly” sent US ground troops into Iraq  to nation build on the false case that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction In March 2003 From UN inspectors.

Bush put the Shiites, the religious majority,  in Iraq in power when he sent US ground troops to nation build on the false premise that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction in March 2003.

Iraq’s neighbor Iran is Shiite and is an ally, a huge strategic supporter, and religiously aligned benefactor to the Shiite run government of Iraq the second it l was first formed in 2004. Maliki lived in Iran in exile for Christ sake.

So what “picking apart” of the Maliki government would American troops teaching Iraqis how to change the oil in an Abrams tank have stopped it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> SIS didn't care who was President of Iraq....they wanted a caliphate.....and got one,


I did a Google  map search of the area and I found no evidence of an ISIS  caliphate. Even going back to when Obama was president. Why do you credit murderous  thugs that are the worst of all non-state terrorists in the modern world with getting a caliphate.

What is wrong with you Catholic dude?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> Of course they were there to make sure the Govt had a chance to take hold and grow...


What do you mean “take hold“? You yourself admit that when Bush signed the first sofa in 2008 Iraq was stable and free.

There was a continuum of a certain level of violence due mostly to Shiite government neglect in the Sunni triangle, but during the first two years of Obama‘s presidency there was no outward indication that Iraq was less stable and free by the start of 2012. As you know 2012 is the date agreed to by President Bush to reduce the number of troops in Iraq to zero. That’s zero with a Z and it ends with an O. Which may help you to remember because a zero and an “O” look alike.  In case you need to look up the word. Most would say Iraq was more stable each month of Obama‘s first term as president. So you’re kind of lying here to suggest that there was any reason why the Bush  Maliki withdrawal date needed to be set back or reason to be re-negotiated.

with respect to combat troops Obama did not change a thing from the time Bush agreed all troops must leave and the date that they actually did. So you have no case against Obama for failing to do anything. He refused nothing that a Iraq  wanted militarily from their perspective that they needed to have their government take hold and grow far into the future.

I believe as a settlement on the immunity issue Obama agreed to keep trainers in Kuwait so the Iraqis had to come to us to be trained. Is that too cruel.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> Cool...that has zero to do with the discussion. Obama's opposition to the war prior to Xiden and Congress's approval of it, has zero to do with the fact he screwed up in 2011


How was keeping American soldiers out of Iraq because the Iraqi government would under no circumstances grant them immunity after 2011 an  Obama screwup?

please explain.


----------



## surada (May 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Yes...it worked...we saw a drop in violence after the surge.
> ...



They had decided before Bush was elected to overthrow Saddam.. The Brits cranked up Operation Mass Appeal to sell the war in 1997.


----------



## surada (May 7, 2021)

Dogmaphobe said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...



I toured  Saudis facilities for children with neurologcal disorders in 2000. Some of the staff were Swiss and some of the doctors were Sudanese or French or Dutch..  They were state of the art facilities with ongoing education of caregiver mothers for children who were only in the day programs. 

We had a lot of discussions about cousin marriages and the changes in courtship etc.. They had become aware of it as their healthcare improved and more  infants survived.

So let's hear about your expertise.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> Why did he have to reinvade when we were already there providing support?


We did not reinvade - we were invited back in by the sovereign government of Iraq as it should be UNDER a Obama the war against ISIS was limited to air strikes and advisers not in a combat role as they were under Bush - The Iraqis, Kurds and Iranian militias did all the door to door fighting in the cities.

Its the way it should be - minimal casualties for our trooos. There people who live there have to do the hard fighting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.


Why did you post Blix-Jan27  reporting on January 27 2003 that Iraq was complying when you are trying to make the argument that Blix was not complying?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 7, 2021)

struth said:


> It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.


You cited Blix-Mar7 (above) defining Iraq’s proactive cooperation on March 7 2003.

But you did not cite the following key Two points.

The next paragraph reads:

Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain​​"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues," he stressed, adding that with a proactive Iraqi stance it would take "not years, nor weeks, but months" to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks, which *he said he would present to the Council before the end of this month.*​
That was no declaration of Material Breach, but  this may be what caused Bush to decide that he had to do this, he had to attack Iraq within 10 days.. Or before the month of March was over.

Mr. Blix emphasized that no evidence had so far been found of weapons of mass destruction being moved around by truck, of mobile production units for biological weapons or of underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage, as claimed by intelligence authorities. Blix-Mar7​Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain​
No evidence had so far been found of weapons of mass destruction ..  as claimed by intelligence authorities.

Cheney probably ripped Lil-Dubya a new asshole for getting UN inspectors in.

Do you know what I mean?


----------



## Quasar44 (May 8, 2021)

No
Iraq was already trapped by a no fly zone 
The bastard Bush is to blame


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 10, 2021)

Quasar44 said:


> No
> Iraq was already trapped by a no fly zone
> The bastard Bush is to blame





struth said:


> and then voted and supporter the war


Biden voted because Bush said he would go though the UNSC. so Biden did not support the war because Bush did not go through the UNSC like he should have.


----------



## struth (May 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> > No
> ...


the facts and reality show you are a liar


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 10, 2021)

struth said:


> Xiden was talking about invading Iraq and removing Saddam...years before the Powell's speech...years before Bush was even in office...



Yes Biden was when Saddam Hussein was not coooerating with UN inspectors. Bush actually did invade Iraq when Biden told him not to because was cooperating with UN inspectors. You’ve got nothing on Biden. Bush is your warmonger.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 10, 2021)

struth said:


> the facts and reality show you are a liar


Are you saying Bush did not actually go to the UNSC and obtain 1441 in an unanimous vote?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> the facts and reality show



If you were truly interested in facts and reality you would be able to transport your mind back to the one year anniversary of the Al Qaeda attacks that politically embarrassed the Bush Administration for allowing it to happen on its watch. Cheney’s “country club” manhood was severely and mostly challenged by the terrorists attack - he had to get it back some way -  SADDAM HUSSEIN was it.

Politically it dawned on the BYSH Administration to pin the blame on the best symbol of evil , a global state actor and enemy with an army in the Muslim World - None other than SADDAM Hussein.

The AYATOLLAHS in Iran could not be connected to Sunni sponsors of terrorism.

Bush had a Democratic ally in Congress in the pursuit of the new doctrine of “anticipatory self-defense” Iraq  - after all Osama Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia and we could not invade our ‘friends’ who created the anti western civilization monster that Bin Laden became.

That Democrat ally 
was not Joe Biden —far from it - it was another DICK - Dick Gephardt.

If you were not consciously participating in the post-9/11/01 world hopefully this will bring you back to the facts and reality of the time.


What Joe Biden's Iraq war vote says about his style of politics​
In the summer of 2002, less than a year after the horrific 9/11 attacks, the Bush-Cheney administration initiated a PR campaign to win support for the idea of attacking the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In a speech at the national conference of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vice President Dick Cheney proclaimed, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” Actually, that was a lie.​
I’ll explain more to you as your reply will be that you posted what Joe Biden said in 1998.


----------



## surada (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > the facts and reality show
> ...



The Saudis revoked OBL's citizenship in 1996 and declared AQ a terrorist organization.


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > the facts and reality show you are a liar
> ...


No I am saying you are a liar, troll, and defender of hypocrisy and torturers


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > the facts and reality show
> ...


I showed the facts.  You on the other hand are interested on in propaganda....I often wondered what happened to al Shahhaf.... now I know...


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

surada said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Yes, but the propagandist still want to blame the Saudi Govt for 9/11 in their efforts to defend Iran, Saddam, and AQ...it's a backdoor way of attempting to in fact blame the USA for 9/11.....you know the "chickens have come home to roost" types...


----------



## surada (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



That doesn't make much sense. The 9-11 plot was small and tightly held.. It only cost about a half million dollars and there was NO  STATE ACTOR. Bush was just determined to take down Saddam. That's what the Israelis wanted since Clean Break Strategy.

Struth, some Americans have this insane notion that they need to fix other countries.. Reform their government, reform their religion and their culture.. change their heritage and traditions. Its always a disaster. The invasion of Iraq was one of the most stupid foreign policy blunders of the past century.


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


it was the US policy since 1998 to take out saddam.


----------



## surada (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Not really, but the dual citizen signatories of the PNAC were pushing Clinton.. He was just too smart to take the bait. The PNAC letter was based on Bibi's Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> it was the US policy since 1998 to take out saddam.


Not the way GWB did it in March 2003. The idea then was to support Iraqi efforts to do it themselves. So you are lying every time you bring that ridiculous unrelated to 2003 point up.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why did you post Blix-Jan27 reporting on January 27 2003 that Iraq was complying when you are trying to make the argument that Blix was not complying?


Why won’t you answer the question :

Why did you post Blix-Jan27 reporting on January 27 2003 that Iraq was complying when you are trying to make the argument that Blix was not complying?


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > it was the US policy since 1998 to take out saddam.
> ...


they never stated away it was broad left it up to the C and C.

you know this


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> Saying Bush had a success there doesn't mean that I was for the war. It's just highlighting the obvious.



If you genuinely opposed the war There us no way in hell that you would call it a success.

You don’t drive through a crowd of innocent men women and children killing dozens and call it a success because you killed a bad guy you saw among them because you though he might have a gun and start shooting up the crowd. You don’t call it a success even if the vid guy had a loaded gun on him.

But only a blatant died in the wool warmonger like you would call it a success even after knowing the bad guy didn’t even have a gun.

Saddam did not have WMD and was not committing mass murder or genocide on his people since his surrender and military containment and sanctions levied against him since his surrender after he invaded Kuwait in 1990.

GHW Bush led military action that was a success if you want to know an example if presidential military leadership that is worthy of our praise. His alcoholic son lied us into war some  say to prove his worth  to daddy - as Trump confirmed he lied - So you have to support the war going in to call it a success mostly because it beans you support the lies that were the in Luv west to get us in.  

But we know you support liars because you said you voted for Trump with his election fraud lies that led to the insurrection in the Trump war in American democracy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> hey never stated away it was broad left it up to the C and C.


Enforcing 1441 was not left up to Bush after he agreed to do it. And Bush did not see regime change using ground troops as necessary on January 30 when he sent his officials to testify in the Senate: 

Mr. Armitage in a written statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq,  a few days after the Blix sixty day report, these exact words,  “The president was clear on Tuesday. He has not yet made a decision to resort to military action.” JANUARY 30 2003  U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relation​
And the United States continued from that point on to support the continuation of inspections. 


How do you explain that? Biden was ok with that verily so. He wanted more if that - not war.


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > hey never stated away it was broad left it up to the C and C.
> ...


Bush could if he wanted to after xiden authorized him to.

stop with your propaganda and debunked lies


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> Bush could if he wanted to after xiden authorized him to.



Bush could if he wanted to whether or not Joe Biden voted or any Democrat voted for the authorization to use military force against Iraq in October 2002.

Why won’t you respond to that?

 As I stated previously Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush believed during the summer of 2002 they could take military action against Saddam Hussein at any time under the authorization to use military force of 2001 in the war against terror which was 100 times more broad than the 2002 AUMF.

Please tell me if what I’m saying is true or not true and back it up with something besides your utter penchant for mumbling BS. If no response from you is your answer I will take it that you have a accepted  it unconditionally as fact.

Can  you make a case that there was no possible way for George W. Bush and Dick  the wanton warmonger Cheney to expand the enforcement of the no-fly zones to get a reaction from Saddam Hussein that would make it absolutely easy to justify an invasion one year or two after the Al-Qaeda attacks on US soil in 2001?

And then George W Bush found out that Tony Blair and the United Kingdom could not partner in this Dick Cheney adventure unless it was sanctioned by the UN or if Saddam Hussein continued to refuse to allow United Nations Security Council inspectors come back into Iraq immediate

Can you respond to this post and just drop all that other crap about 1998 that you’ve been posting for a month?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> You are quoting lying Xiden.





NotfooledbyW said:


> JOSEPH BIDEN [D-DELAWARE]
> Thursday, July 31, 2003
> 
> For me, the issue was never whether we had to deal with Saddam, but when and how we dealt with Saddam. And it's precisely the when and how that I think this administration got wrong.* We went to war too soon*, we went to war with too few troops, *we went to war without the world*, when we could have had many with us, and we're paying the price for it now.


Show me a fact checker from anywhere who says Biden either didn’t say that or there’s something in there that is not true. If you do not respond with a fact checker link I take that as an answer that you were lying again. There is no fact check on that statement from Biden.


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2021)

Being a real Conservative and a non interventionist I pretty well saw no need to invade Iraq.  They didn't have anything to do with 911 and our efforts should have been in Afghanistan to go after the assholes that attacked us.  

However, once troops were deployed I wanted them to be successful.  My son was one of them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> He voted to overthrow Saddam...and he, as I already highlighted...in the 90s, endorced ground troops


That is not true. The authorization to use military force against Iraq voted in October 2002 did not say that Congress authorized the use of military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein‘s regime in Iraq. It did not say that. Why are you saying that it does?

Are you confusing that authorization by Congress with something else? Just maybe you’re not a liar. Maybe you’re just very confused about things.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> He said in the 90s to do it....and he did it without a second resolution



Show us where Biden ever said to change the regime in Iraq using hundreds of thousands of American ground troops and doing it without the UN and the world behind us after The reality on the ground in Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was in proactive cooperation with 200 UN security council inspectors that needed, they said,about 90 days to verify there were no WMD being hidden Iraq. That’s all 90 peaceful days.


If you can’t find a quote “Where Senator Joe Biden said that in an actual situation where it mattered you got to find enough sense to just stop with the stupid argument that you’ve been making going back to 1998 when there were no inspectors allowed to do their work inside Iraq.

You’re just verifying the fact that Trump voters are stupid people.

Specifically Trump voters who are so warmongering stupid that they cannot even believe it when their cult master Trump says BUSH lied to get us into the Iraq war.

But it’s great for you to confirm what we already know.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> “You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. Y*ou and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”*


You have declared that the above 1998 quote from Senator Joseph Biden is is an endorsement for going it alone and using ground troops to take Saddam Hussein out.

That is not an endorsement. Where did you get your education? Trump university?

It was a broad statement more or less an opinion offered to a resist what a US weapons inspector wanted at that time. Scott Ritter wanted United Nations weapons inspectors to call In military force whenever the inspector felt it was necessary to gain access to certain sites in Iraq.

Senator Joe Biden was opposed to that idea because it would give inspectors the authority to start a war. So Senator Biden‘s remarks were then as they were in 2003 intended to stop at war. So you’re not only were wrong about it being an endorsement of regime change you were wrong about the context because in the context he is trying to prevent war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> and then voted and supporter the war, because he had been pushing it since the 90s


That  makes absolutely no sense. If Biden was pushing war then why did he try to stop it when he was chairman of the senate foreign relations committee? Why did Biden join Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel—in a bipartisan effort to restrict Bush’s authority to invade Iraq If he was all gung ho for invading Iraq with ground troops without United Nations full and total backing?

Read this: 

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden was in the middle of the WMD debate. As Michael Isikoff and I reported in our 2006 book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, a few weeks after that Cheney speech, in late September, Biden was chairing a classified hearing at which CIA Director George Tenet was the key witness. Tenet told senators that there was intelligence showing that Saddam had acquired aluminum tubes used for enriching weapons-grade uranium, that he had a fleet of mobile biological weapons labs, and that he was developing drones that could transport and deliver chemical and biological agents. As Tenet testified, Biden envisioned these drones being launched off tankers cruising along the coast of the United States and attacking Philadelphia or Charleston, South Carolina. This was hair-raising stuff.​
But Biden and other committee members pressed Tenet for evidence backing up these frightening claims. And a staffer passed Biden a note with a suggested question: What “technically collected” evidence of Iraqi WMD did the CIA possess? In other words, did Tenet have any concrete proof? Had the CIA tracked radioactive emissions from supposed nuclear sites, gathered electronic intercepts in which Iraqis communicated about their various WMD, or obtained samples of biological agents? “None, Senator,” Tenet answered.​
A hush fell on the room. None? Nothing at all? Biden was bothered. “George, do you want me to clear the staff out of the room?” he asked. This was Biden’s way of inquiring whether the CIA chief had some super-secret intelligence nailing Saddam that he was hesitant to share with staffers present. “There’s no reason to, Senator,” Tenet responded—a signal he wasn’t holding anything back. A Biden staffer, a former Pentagon contractor who specialized in nuclear technology, went home that night and told his wife, “They’re going to war and there’s not a damn piece of evidence to substantiate it.”​
At this point, the public debate concerned a congressional resolution Bush and Cheney were pushing that would provide Bush the authority to attack Iraq. Bush was essentially asking the Senate and the House to give him a go-to-war-free card, with no restraints on the option to order military action in Iraq as he saw fit. Biden, perhaps because he had seen that the case for war was flimsy, joined with two Republicans on his committee—Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel—in a bipartisan effort to restrict Bush’s authority to invade Iraq. They proposed an alternative to Bush’s resolution that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of destroying WMD andonly after seeking UN approval. If the UN turned Bush down, he would have to come back to Congress and prove Saddam posed a WMD threat so “grave” that only military action could eliminate it. Bush couldn’t just hop into war on his own.​


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > “You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. Y*ou and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”*
> ...


I never said anything about "going alone" - just stop with your lies and propaganda....


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> I never said anything about "going alone" -


You are a liar.  You posted this statement from Biden (in bold) and have called him a war monger because of it.

 You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up *having to start it alone — start it alone —*


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> .we didn’t need the UN.


Biden said we did.


struth said:


> He didn't need UN approval to invade..he had the US Congressional approval.





struth said:


> Sorry there was nothing in the Congressional Authorization of Force that required us to get any sort of UN agreement.


It supported getting 1441 and Bush did.


struth said:


> The USA doesnt' need the UN's permission to go to war.



Biden wanted Bush to need to get UN permission



struth said:


> I never said anything about "going alone" - just stop with your lies and propaganda....



Sure you did - not needing the UN is  warmonger talk for going it alone.

You are a warmonger for agreeing with Dick Cheney on not needing UN


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > .we didn’t need the UN.
> ...


 sorry al-Sahhaf.....you've been debunked and dethroned.....no more torture chambers for you to rape and murder your own citizens....sorry, not sorry


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> you've been debunked


What has been debunked?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> you've been debunked


Do you agree with Dick Cheney that it was the correct decision to go it alone to change the regime in order to disarm Iraq  and nation build without full UN support or do you agree with Joe Biden who says Bush should have gotten full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence  before invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and nation build Iraq into a successful democracy?

Considering the fact that there was no WMD in Iraq,  Who was right? CHENEY Or BIDEN?


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > you've been debunked
> ...


Everything you have said


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > you've been debunked
> ...


Xiden didn't say that at first....you lie. 

I agree that regime change had to happen.  As I have repeatedly stated.  I don't care if we had UN support or not.  The UN is not the USA, and we do not need their approval to do anything.  In fact, it only exist because we have allowed it to.


----------



## Correll (May 11, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...




Yes I did. Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> Everything you have said


Where do you debunk anything I have posted?


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Everything you have said
> ...


With every one of my post.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> But Xiden didn't say that at first....you lie.



I’m debunking you: Biden said  it in February 2003: 

Biden February 5, 2003: Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- as he already is doing, based on my breakfast with him this morning, with others -- with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a certain definition deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. Iraqi Weapons Violations​​​And There is this - specifically the last paragraph makes you a liar. 
​Senator Joe Biden *3: Senator Biden ....”taking some issue with the administration on how they approach this subject.​
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 HEARING on Iraq​
Senator Joe Biden *3: And I want to make it clear. I think the disagreements, (with the Administration)  to the extent they exist, are based on the risk assessment as it  relates to timing.​
Senator Joe Biden *3: I think the goal that we have is to separate Saddam Hussein from his weapons of mass destruction with the greatest possible support of the world that we can get, to reduce, in direct proportion, the risk we face in separating and, after separating, securing Iraq. That, to me, is the goal.​
Senator Joe Biden *3: I would like to return to three points that have been  raised by ...Senator Voinovich, ..he said the question is not, Will Saddam--respond if he's given more time?​
Senator Joe Biden *3: This is a tactical difference we have. I think the question is, If we give more time, will that markedly increase the  support we get from the rest of the world, and weigh that against the risks?​
Senator Joe Biden *3: So the question, for me, is, Will the additional time given increase the risk beyond the support we will get by allowing more time​
Senator Joe Biden *3: 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?​
Senator Joe Biden *3:  But the question is, Does his failure to cooperate increase the risk in a way that outweighs the risk of going with fewer people, less support when we go?​​Senator Joe Biden *3: Now, I realize that maintaining the deployment of a hundred-plus-thousand forces in the region is costly. I would just raise, for--as a question to be considered--it is a heck of a lot more costly to deploy those forces with fewer people helping us, and less commitment to mop up after it is over.​
*Senator Joe Biden *3: 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.*​​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> Xiden didn't say that at first....you lie.





struth said:


> With every one of my post.



Not in a couple of your posts back when you wrote “Xiden didn't say that at first”

I am telling you again;  Biden says it before the invasion.
​Senator Joe Biden *3: 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.​
You were wrong again. How is that you debunking me?


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > But Xiden didn't say that at first....you lie.
> ...


He had already authorized the President to use force at that point....and been talking up ground troops for five plus years....“You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,” Biden said. “You know it and I know it.” -Xiden 1998.

What he said after the fact isn't really relevent...we know lyin' Xiden likes to flip flop. 


“In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he may use them or share them with terrorists,” 

“These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power,” he continued. “President Bush has stated his determination to remove Saddam from power, a view many in Congress share" -Xiden August of 2002





__





						- HEARINGS TO EXAMINE THREATS, RESPONSES, AND REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS SURROUNDING IRAQ
					





					www.govinfo.gov


----------



## there4eyeM (May 11, 2021)

The Iraq fiasco was such a catastrophe that it is difficult to understand how lightly most people seem to take it. An enormous train of ill effects has streamed from that adventure that are part and parcel of the principle problems we face today. It has given indirect rise to even more.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> He had already authorized the President to use force at that point.



If necessary. 

Biden’s vote didn’t mean he had to agree with a President that ends up lying to him and the entire world to make his rotten decision to invade appear to be a necessary decision with no other options

When bush lied about Iraq hiding WMD from the inspectors that lie  removes all  any responsibility Biden and the other Democrats might’ve had by their vote in October 2002.

You believe the lies. And you believe the Liar. And you applaud the lie because you are a warmonger.


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > He had already authorized the President to use force at that point.
> ...


Sorry the language of Xiden's authorization didn't say "if necessary" it authorized him to use military force as he DEEMED necessary.  

Sorry....Saeed....your propaganda can't change public law.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> Sorry the language of Xiden's authorization didn't say "if necessary" it authorized him to use military force as he DEEMED necessar


Post the language liar,

Deemed is not in the version I have:

(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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that --

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

whether W determined or deemed it to be necessary or that it was necessary he still lied about the necessity  and Biden is not responsible for voting to authorize a president who would lie about such a grave matter as sending our young service men and women into war.


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry the language of Xiden's authorization didn't say "if necessary" it authorized him to use military force as he DEEMED necessar
> ...


Wow...you really can't read...even what you post yourself: 

" 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 *


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Do you see the two words  “to be” that means it was not necessary on the date of the vote but it may be at some future point depending on certain conditions


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> Sorry the language of Xiden's authorization didn't say "if necessary" it authorized him to use military force as he DEEMED necessary.


Moron! “As he deemed necessary“ is past tense. You were saying senator Joe Biden authorized the use of military force for a decision that George W. Bush has already made.That will be added to your list of lies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

M


struth said:


> “In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he may use them or share them with terrorists,”


I agree with that 1000 percent. What is wrong with Biden saying that ever.  Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March to start a war. That is not Bush being concerned. That was Bush lying to make his concerns into making a case for war.


----------



## Correll (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> M
> 
> 
> struth said:
> ...




Could have been an honest mistake.


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> M
> 
> 
> struth said:
> ...


bush just said what the inspectors said


----------



## struth (May 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


yeah it means whatever the president deemed to be necessary.  geez


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Could have been an honest mistake.


By whom?

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

That supposed intelligence is the basis for Bush’s lie because the Baathist regime in Iraq was not hiding “The most lethal weapons ever devised from Inspectors under 1441.  They were not hiding anything.

What nation’s intelligence besides our own was Dubya acting upon?

Why didn’t Dubya share this Intel with the inspectors as required under 1441.

Why didn’t Dubya send the intelligence gatherers into Iraq to verify the locations of “the most lethal weapons ever devised” as they were invited in by Saddam Hussein himself in December 2002?







struth said:


> bush just said what the inspectors said



What and when and where  was that? The inspectors said a lot of things including that they had found nothing over the i in sat here months  and within 90 days with the proactive cooperation from Iraq being received and what it was, they could verify Iraq being disarmed in 90 days without a war. 

I have never heard Bush saying that Iraq was cooperating proactively with UNMOVIC Inspectors under 1441. Did I miss something?

are you lying again? 




struth said:


> yeah it means whatever the president deemed to be necessary. geez


Not in the AUMF. You lied before and you got caught. You said Joe B authorized Bush to use military force as he DEEMED necessary.”  You  left out “to be” in your original version.

You originally tried to say what a warmonger would say that Joe B gave Bush authority to use military force for a decision that Bush had already made. That was a lie. You were nailed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Could have been an honest mistake.


By whom?

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

That supposed intelligence is the basis for Bush’s lie because the Baathist regime in Iraq was not hiding “The most lethal weapons ever devised”  from Inspectors under 1441.  They were not hiding anything.

What nation’s intelligence besides our own was Dubya acting upon?

Why didn’t Dubya share this Intel with the inspectors as required under 1441.

Why didn’t Dubya send the intelligence gatherers into Iraq to verify the locations of “the most lethal weapons ever devised” as they were invited in by Saddam Hussein himself in December 2002?



struth said:


> bush just said what the inspectors said



What and when and where was that? The inspectors said a lot of things including that they had found nothing over the i in sat here months  and within 90 days with the proactive cooperation from Iraq being received and what it was, they could verify Iraq being disarmed in 90 days without a war. 

I have never heard Bush saying that Iraq was cooperating proactively with UNMOVIC Inspectors under 1441. Did I miss something?

are you lying again? 




struth said:


> yeah it means whatever the president deemed to be necessary. geez


Not in the AUMF. You lied before and you got caught. You said Joe B authorized Bush to use military force as he DEEMED necessary.”  You  left out “to be” in your original version.

You originally tried to say what a warmonger would say that Joe B gave Bush authority to use military force for a decision that Bush had already made. That was a lie. You were nailed


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> yeah it means whatever the president deemed to be necessary. geez


The actual AUMF uses the word “determines to be necessary” not “deems to be necessary” There is a difference and you therefore are a liar.

Deem is defined as to hold as an opinion; think; regard as:

Determine is defined as to ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 11, 2021)

struth said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Yes It was Bush a Republican who is solely responsible for lying us into a war in Iraq to separate Saddam Hussein from Weapons of Mass Destruction. But v There were none. it cannot be a success being it was based on a lie. It was a fraudulent case for war. Killing people while committing fraud must never be considered a success. The decision to invade when and with a minimal coalition can only be considered a success by war mongers like you.

It was mostly US military officers that fired out the way to extricate themselves from the quagmire that Bush’s lie caused. Credit for success in the war zone shot go no higher than the men and women sent to fight in it.  No credit for Bush except blame is due to that dishonest dusaster if a President.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> that’s why i don’t go around being critical of Bush and the people that supported it.


Six out of ten Americans in March 2003 wanted inspections to continue and military action withheld until the inspections were completed. Six out of ten Americans in March 2003 wanted Bush to get UN Endorsement if the inspections were not successful prior to taking military action. Joe Biden and I were with the 6 out of ten Americans.

You are with the 4 out of ten minority of Americans along with Dick Cheney who wanted to invade without screwing with inspections at all.  Cheney had no patience to  find hard and solid evidence of WMD being hidden in Iraq to justify invading. 

You are with Dick Cheney and the anti-UN and anti evidence group.

I am with Joe Biden and the pro- UN and pro-evidence group.

You are a certified Cheney duped warmonger.

Senator Joe Biden *3: 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.U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq​
Dick Cheney *3: "Well, I think we are rapidly approaching the point where, having done everything we can diplomatically and the president clearly has, I think, managed to convey to the American people that he's taken every possible step that was conceivable before he resorts to the ultimate use of force, that having done that, having worked as aggressively as we know how with the international community that time is not on our side. That if we allow additional time to lapse here, Saddam Hussein is likely to continue to try to develop nuclear weapons, for example, may in fact try to mount terrorist attacks of various kinds against us and we need to get on with the business of solving this problem and eliminating this threat." Mar. 16, 2003     Excerpt taken from Richard Cheney's interview on CBS' Face the Nation​​Dick Cheney *3: A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with U.N. resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow "back in his box."​The US vice president, Dick Cheney, delivered this speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) national convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Tue 27 Aug 2002 03.41 EDT​

Cheney was wrong. Biden was right. I knew that before the war. You don’t even know that now.


----------



## Correll (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Could have been an honest mistake.
> ...



By everyone involved. 

Also, the way you pepper your post with baby talk, makes you look not serious. 

My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was  hiding shit. It is strange with the benefit of  hindsight that what he was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required. 


An odd choice for him. Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit. 


Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear. 


There is a lot to be learned from that war. If you lie about what actually happened, you ensure that we do not learn it, and thus are more likely to repeat the same mistakes. 

So, the choice for you is what is more important. Avoiding unwise wars, or scoring partisan points. 


Your response will reveal who you are, an anti-war peace lover, or just a partisan zealot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.





struth said:


> Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq.





struth said:


> ignored the reality on the ground and the military.



You are lying because in your entire post it is you that ignores the conditions on the ground with respect to immunity. You don’t ever mention the word.

ISIS never expanded their terror offensive beyond the Sunni Triangle in Iraq. They could not conquer Shiite or Kurdish Iraq which meant they could only exist where they had allies in the local Sunni population which is about a third of the country.

The words “Free Iraq” as Bush used it in 2008 in reality was a general term that applied mostly to Kurds and Shiites who were rid of Saddam Hussein but only the Kurds (the smallest of the three) appreciated the liberation that came as a result of the Bush led invasion of 2003.

Sunnis were not freed, the ones that lived in Baghdad were ethically cleansed 
Sunnis In the government and army and public sector were removed from power and livelihoods by the Bush invasion.

This is his how your BUSH SUCCESS was instigated and implemented.
​Sectarian criminal violence by armed Shia and Sunni organizations created a situation of ethnic/religious cleansing that reconfigured much of Baghdad. Error - Cookies Turned Off​The article focuses on the case of how one particularly violent group, the Mahdi Army, mobilized through the coercive entrepreneurship of Muqtada al‐Sadr, used organized crime tactics of killing, torture, rape, kidnapping, harassment, threats, and forced displacement in a widespread and systematic attack against civilians that forced Sunni residents from their Baghdad neighborhoods. Ordinary Iraqis were victims of an amplified “self‐fulfilling prophecy of fear” that created the momentum for massive sectarian displacement in the battle for Baghdad.​
Sunnis were displaced, tortured, beaten murdered, robbed and driven from their homes and businesses thanks to the hasty and unprepared and low-balled US invasion that went in to find the WMD programs and stockpiles  that  were not there.

Shiites didn’t consider themselves freed or liberated either by Bush until the US military occupation was over.

The Shiite governing majority was never going to extend the troop withdrawal deadline that Bush agreed to on his way out of the bloody disaster that he created.

Thats what Obama was up against in 2012.

That is what was considered free and stable Iraq from 2008 through 2012.

Iraq was not ‘free’ under SH but it was  stable with 200 UN inspectors there until  Dubya chased them out.

Biden advised Bush to give the inspectors through late FALL 2003 to let them finish disarming Saddam PEACEFULLY.

He was right. Cheney was wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> If you lie


When you inform the readers what you consider to be a lie among everything I am writing here I will respond to your muggwumpistic commentary.


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.
> ...


why should i mention it? 

obama failed to get it reauthorized.

they had been working on it for quite some time but...it was an election year...he needed to a win to feed his base...so he pulled out.  

putting politics over lives.  

then we had to go back 

cheney and bush were long out of office in 2011.  stop you deflecting and propaganda


----------



## Dusty (May 12, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


No member of the GOP supported the war in Iraq 150 percent

LOL

Next


----------



## Correll (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > If you lie
> ...




Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to. 


Because Honest mistake is obviously a real possibility.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to.



FRONT END GUESS.

I say and have been saying throughout my ongoing discussions on Iraq for 18 years that the universal belief that Saddam had wmds in place was never a lie. He didn’t allow it to be proven otherwise until DECEMBER 2002 at which time inspections were resumed under 1441 with full agreement and support by the Bush Administration and immediate coooeration on process by Iraq.

So why enter the discussion now on your misunderstanding of what I’m saying?

I’m here primarily defending Joe Biden from the partisan attack by struth.

I had not researched as much as I would have liked on Joe’s participation in the run up to the invasion of Iraq but I am quite pleased that struth has led me to this  from the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq in which Biden uttered these very significant and thoughtful words that could have prevented the entire fiasco and disaster the invasion of Iraq was had Bush listened. 

Senator Joe Biden *3: 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.​​Do you find it amazing as I do that “sleepy Joe” back then, being without *“the benefit of hindsight”, * to possess such clarity of vision to be able to evaluate the risks of allowing the threat to continue under the watchful eyes of the entire world and let inspectors work with the dictator to establish the rock solid EVIDENCE that would justify removing SH by force if needed to be done. A few more months - avoids war - Joe said.
​As to your accusation that I lied.​​struth posted this:​​Biden said: "The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place. To deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you or I believe he's ever going to abandon as long as he is in place.”​​Everyone from Dick Cheney to Mother Theresa probably would agree with Joe Biden o  that. I did. So why did  you accuse me of calling everyone who believed that a liar?

Biden and Cheney were right to believe that all the way until No WMD were found and admitted in 2004.

Its the lies that led to the violent means and methods decided upon to “find them” not. ..... that I will be happy to discuss with you here if you can find a way to be honest about it.

So far you have failed in that regard.

Perhaps you just made an unfortunate mistake.


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to.
> ...


nobody is listening to your propaganda


----------



## Correll (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to.
> ...




I think that the primary lessons to be learned for Iraq, are A. don't be too certain about intelligence reports, and B. Arabs suck at democracy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> When did I say the Bush admin didn't analyize the intel? They did, it happened to be the same as the Clinton admin



Do you Correll agree with your fellow Christian Trump supporter that the Bush Administration relied on the same Intel on WMD’s in 2003 as the Clinton Admin did in 1998?

If true do you see that as a problem seeing  as how the Bush Admin turned down SH’s offer in DECEMBER 2002 to let the CIA enter Iraq to inspect and join the search alongside UNMOVIC inspectors??


----------



## Correll (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > When did I say the Bush admin didn't analyize the intel? They did, it happened to be the same as the Clinton admin
> ...




At this late date, I have no opinion on such minute details of the issue. I also don't know why you are making such a big deal over Struth's religion in this context. 

Or indeed, his support of Trump. Both seem irrelevant to a war that happened long before Trump was in office.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> and B. Arabs suck at democracy.


Correll  being Correll !!!

I should have known he’d be bringing that to the discussion along with the ‘blame the victim’ defense.


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


It took me awhile to figure it out, but this really is Saeed al-Shaffaf...or "Baghdad Bob" - he's just pushing propaganda and misinformation in defense of his Dear Leader Saddam...the murderous dictator....and he is simply a bigot against Christians. 

Ignore his debunked rants


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> I have no opinion on such minute details of the issue.



But you know enough to make a final judgment that eternally excuses Bush by  blaming it on the intelligence gatherers who did not make the decision to kick the inspectors out. Bush force the removal of those  who were gathering the best intelligence ever at the time. And Saddam Hussein offered Bush to let the CIA come in and join the search and verification.

You have not the slightest bit of curiosity as to why Bush turned that offer down.

Why do have you no curiosity? What if it was not an intelligence gatherer that Bush can identify that enabled him to Say this?

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

Ten days prior to that statement Bush drafted a Resolution that was circulated around the UNSC which indicated that Bush *did not have Intelligence* that left no doubt the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

We can know that because that Draft Resolution allowed the opportunity for SH to remain in power. No regime change.

Bush was supposed to have all intelligence on WMD over to the inspectors . He claimed he c was doing it.

So where did the intelligence come from when he said this announcing he decided to send out sons and daughters into War. Many of them Christians.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

Who gave Bush that Intel between the March 10 and March 17?

If we are going to learn a lesson from Iraq shouldn’t we know exactly why Bush told us he had no other choice but to invade Iraq and let the killing begin at once.

Why was Biden’s advice to wait six months ignored?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> It took me awhile to figure it out, but this really is Saeed al-Shaffaf...or "Baghdad Bob"


You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.


Your point does not stand. It never had legs. You have not countered my response    without anything except that you are mentally lazy. And a crude smack down of brown people who are not Christians like you and struth. You will make great warmongers together.

Let me know when you are interested in discussing those pesky details necessary for establishing facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> I also don't know why you are making such a big deal over Struth's religion in this context.


Why stick your nose into that business when you don’t have time to think about the facts leading up to disastrous mistake of invading Iraq in the way and the timing and the reasons the led Bush to do it.

struth is a warmonger on Iraq and a declared Catholic who ignored the Pope’s opinion against the war. And the Pope Lives closer to Iraq than we do and he wasn’t very worried WMD. 

That makes struth a severe and dangerous warmonger that needs to be brought to the truth about the war so it doesn’t happen again.

The guy lies and lies and lies. I would think his religion would deter some of that.


----------



## surada (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



There were 50 Christian churches in Baghad before Bush's invasion.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad - Wikipedia








						Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad (Latin: Bagdathen(sis) Latinorum) is a Catholic diocese of the Roman/Latin Rite located in the city of Baghdad in Iraq. It has jurisdiction over three parishes of 2,500 Latin Church Catholics who live throughout Iraq. The diocese is immediately subject to the Holy See. It operates alongside seven Chaldean dioceses, three Syrian Catholic, one Greek-Melkite jurisdicti…


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.
> ...


The only warmonger was you and your boss Saddam.   You all certainly hate brown people with all the ones you tortured to death and gassed with WMDs


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Cool.   So what?   They too were oppressed by Saddam and his bloody regime of terror


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> Cool. So what? They too were oppressed by Saddam and his bloody regime of terror


You are a liar.


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Cool. So what? They too were oppressed by Saddam and his bloody regime of terror
> ...


Hardly....I get you are going to defend your dead boss to the end...but Saddam had one of the worst regimes ever









						Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"Iraq's era under President Saddam Hussein was notorious for its severe violations of human rights, which were perceived to be among the worst in the world. Secret police, state terrorism, torture, mass murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape, deportations, extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical warfare, and the destruction of southern Iraq's marshes were some of the methods Saddam and the country's Ba'athist government used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period is unknown, but estimated to be around 250,000 according to Human Rights Watch,[1] with the great majority of those occurring as a result of the 1988 Anfal genocide and the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture."

Human rights organizations have documented government-approved executions, acts of torture and rape for decades since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 until his fall in 2003.




In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law" and called on Iraq to cease "summary and arbitrary executions ... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".[2]
Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Ba'ath Party, which constituted only 8% of the population.
Iraqi citizens were not legally allowed to assemble unless it was to express support for the government. The Iraqi government controlled the establishment of political parties, regulated their internal affairs and monitored their activities.
Police checkpoints on Iraq's roads and highways prevented ordinary citizens from traveling across country without government permission and expensive exit visas prevented Iraqi citizens from traveling abroad. Before traveling, an Iraqi citizen had to post collateral. Iraqi females could not travel outside of the country without the escort of a male relative.[3]
The Persecution of Feyli Kurds under Saddam Hussein,[4] also known as the Feyli Kurdish genocide, was a systematic persecution of Feylis by Saddam Hussein between 1970 and 2003. The persecution campaigns led to the expulsion, flight and effective exile of the Feyli Kurds from their ancestral lands in Iraq. The persecution began when a large number of Feyli Kurds were exposed to a big campaign by the regime that began by the dissolved RCCR issuance for 666 decision, which deprived Feyli Kurds of Iraqi nationality and considered them as Iranians. The systematic executions started in Baghdad and Khanaqin in 1979 and later spread to other Iraqi and Kurdish areas.[5][6] It is estimated that around 25,000 Feyli Kurds died due to captivity and torture.[7][8][_clarification needed_]
Halabja poison gas attack:The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period 15–19 March 1988 during the Iran–Iraq War when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces and thousands of civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja were killed.[9]
Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms and power stations.[9][10]
In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed full-scale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before.[11]
In June 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion, some of which are part of Islamic Sharia law, while government members and Saddam's family members were immune from punishments ranging around these crimes.[12]
In 2001, the Iraqi government amended the Constitution to make sodomy a capital offense.
On March 23, 2003, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi television presented and interviewed prisoners of war on TV, violating the Geneva Convention.
Also in April 2003, CNN revealed that it had withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens in the 1990s. According to CNN's chief news executive, the channel had been concerned for the safety not only of its own staff, but also of Iraqi sources and informants, who could expect punishment for speaking freely to reporters. Also according to the executive, "other news organizations were in the same bind."[13]
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total and more are being uncovered to this day.[14] While most of the dead in the graves were believed to have died in the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein, some of them appeared to have died due to executions or died at times other than the 1991 rebellion.
Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other authoritarian nations.
"In January 2004, Human Rights Watch stated: "Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting [Saddam's] atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba'th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more."[1] A January 2003 _The New York Times_ article by John Fisher Burns similarly states that "the number of those 'disappeared' into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000" and compared Saddam to Joseph Stalin, while acknowledging that "Even on a proportional basis, [Stalin's] crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's."[23] The 1988 Al-Anfal campaign resulted in the death of 50,000-100,000 Kurds (although Kurdish sources have cited a higher figure of 182,000), while 25,000-100,000 civilians and rebels were killed during the suppression of the 1991 uprisings.[11][24] In addition, 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison were reportedly executed in a particularly large 1984 purge.[25] Far fewer Iraqis are known to have been executed during other years of Saddam's rule. For example, "Amnesty International reported that in 1981 over 350 people were officially executed in Iraq ... the Committee Against Repression in Iraq gives biographic particulars on 798 executions (along with 264 killings of unknown persons, and 428 biographies of unsentenced detainees and disappeared persons)." Kanan Makiya cautions that a focus on the death toll obscures the full extent of "the terror inside Iraq," which was largely the product of the pervasive secret police and systematic use of torture.[22]"


----------



## surada (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



No they weren't. They were protected by SD.


----------



## surada (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Operation Mass Appeal promoted a one sided version of all wiki cites to sell the war.


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


hahahahha nobody was protected...he killed Christians, Jews, Muslims.....he just killed


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


hahaha so all that is lies?  Amnasty International lied?  Human Rights Watch lied?  hahahaha


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> hahaha so all that is lies? Amnasty International lied? Human Rights Watch lied? hahahaha


SADDAM kept the Christians safe. THAT WAS THE Discussion.   Try to keep up.


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > chahaha so all that is lies? Amnasty International lied? Human Rights Watch lied? hahahaha
> ...


He didn't care about their faith....he killed any of his subjects. to 

That's the point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> He didn't care about their faith....he killed any of his subjects. to



You and your Christian buddy Correll  are lying dimwit anti-Iraqi Christian tools of the Dick Cheney War machine for your undying support for the unprepared unsupported reckless decision by George W BUSH to remove Saddam from power. After Joe Biden told him not to do it . Correll for blaming the intelligence gatherers.

You are responsible for this and are  still proud of it:

But what should be remembered is that this wave of Christian persecution began not with Islamic State, but a decade ago in the chaos sparked by the US- and British-led invasion of Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein’s rule Christians in fact enjoyed what they now recall as a golden age. They were free to worship and played a full role in society. However, the removal of the dictator let loose an ugly Shia-Sunni power struggle.​​These may be the last Christians of the Middle East – unless we help | Jane Corbin​​Father Douglas Bazi, a Catholic priest I met in Irbil ...​​The priest’s church in Baghdad was bombed and he was taken hostage until the church paid a ransom. His captors broke his back with a hammer – then his teeth, one by one. “If you look at history, we are the same group who lose every time. They push us to lose our faith, our people, our role, our positions, our job, now we have lost our homes – so what next?”​​A million people, two-thirds of Iraq’s Christians, fled in the decade following the fall of Saddam​


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't care about their faith....he killed any of his subjects. to
> ...


Please...I just provided well documented facts of Saddam's murderous regime. 

Just stop.    Sorry you can't torture anyone anymore.

Nobody cares what you have to say anymore Baghdad Bob....go spread your propaganda somewhere else.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> hahahahha nobody was protected...he killed Christians, Jews, Muslims.....he just killed


Bush killed more by lying us into war including 4500 Americans. SADDAM didn’t kill any Americans that I know of. Who’s side are you on anyway? 

Bush would have killed no Americans in Iraq  and half a million Iraqis would have lived out their Lives instead of getting killed in Bush’s disaster in Iraq.

Perhaps the Taliban would’ve been actually defeated if BUSH had listened to Joe Biden.

Senator Joe Biden *3: 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.​
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> Please...I just provided well documented facts of Saddam's murderous regime.



Providing facts not relevant to the discussion is a form of lying. You are a fully documented liar.

I’m gonna send the documentation to the Pope to see if there is any way to save you.


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > hahahahha nobody was protected...he killed Christians, Jews, Muslims.....he just killed
> ...


more lying propaganda


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> more lying propaganda


Go through the posts You cant find one sliver of a lie from me. you on the other hand are possibly outpacing Trump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> Yes....we took out Saddam and left the next admin a free and stable Iraq. I am not sure how you can say that wasn't a success.


Its very simple. To be success the following starting would have to have been    True.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

It was not true. The March 2003 Invasion could not be a success as it became known that what Bush told us was the reason he chose war over peaceful means was a lie.


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > more lying propaganda
> ...


it’s all lies and misinformation Baghdad Bob...we know how your debunked post work


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> the UN had already found they were in violation of 1441.


Let’s pretend that was true on January 27, 2003.  Here is the official response from  the White House:

Mr. Armitage in a written statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq,  a few days after the Blix sixty day report, these exact words,  “The president was clear on Tuesday. He has not yet made a decision to resort to military action.”

JANUARY 30 2003  U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,​
Do you understand what that Meant? There was no threat from Iraq’s conduct during the 1441 inspections to justify the use of military force at that point. And your      Argument for starting a war grew weaker and weaker with every passing day of inspections. Saddam’s conduct improved day to day with proactive cooperation even on substance from the Iraqis by the  end of February and  the Decider continued to find no threat serious enough to justify a war going into March, getting close to those  hotter and hotter days on the dusty road from Kuwait to Baghdad.

So what drive the decision to invade? An intelligence based imminent threat or the ambient temperature in Iraq during the summer.

But why not listen to Joe?

Senator Joe Biden *3: 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.​
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

H


struth said:


> it’s all lies and misinformation


But you cant point to one single sentence by me where you can make a case that I lied. 

Why is that? 

Correll  took a shot and failed. At least he took a shot. Where is


----------



## struth (May 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> H
> 
> 
> struth said:
> ...


i thought when i said all it covered it...all


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> i thought when i said all it covered it...all


Make a case starting with the first one and we can go through them all. But you need to point out your mental deduction and reasoning as if you are the prosecution in a courtroom. You have to elaborate on the accusation so I can refute the charges one by one. See what @Correl did and how I shot it down.

Until you bring a case I maintain my innocence. I have  not  lied in any posts on any message board ever.

I have made  a few  errors and when pointed  out I stand corrected . - BUT NOT on  Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 12, 2021)

struth said:


> Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too



If you mean Pelosi - you are a liar.  


I wonder what Correll thinks about a fellow Christian Trump supporter who lies as much as you do.

House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued the following statement this afternoon about the new Congressional resolution authorizing military force against Iraq:​
"The decision of whether to send our brave men and women in uniform to war is the most solemn and serious choice we face as Members of Congress. Before putting our young people in harm’s way, we must be certain there is no other recourse.​
"Because I do not believe we have exhausted all diplomatic remedies, I cannot support the Administration’s resolution regarding the use of force in Iraq. I am also extremely concerned about the impact of such action on our war against terrorism.​
"A number of my colleagues are working on an alternative that I hope I can support. An acceptable alternative would require the United States to seek a multilateral diplomatic initiative before authorizing the use of force.​
"As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation. If the Administration has that information, they have not shared it with the Congress.​
"If we invade Iraq, we will show our military power. If we can eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction without invading, we will show our strength."​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

59 60 61 62, then we stopped  keeping a body count 

Toby Kieth: 'Cos we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.

Correll #661    America had been terribly attacked and was not afraid in a mood to put up with any shit.

...number 058 of 500,000 got the American boot up the ass.  Salma Amin 50 Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

Because  Correll sez:      #669
Arabs suck at democracy.

.... 059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

.... 060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

(The Angry American) Toby Kieth & 

struth May 2, 2021 #296  
Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents. 

Toby Keith: Hey, Uncle Sam put your name(s) at the top of his list,

.....061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

The Pentagon reported on 7 April that .A B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.

Toby Kieth: And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.
Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.

When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out -- torso first, then the head -- her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed.

That must be Shams Amin, daughter of Salma Amin and sister to Mohammed and Said Amin, who were all killed by the four 2000 lb BGU bunker buster bombs inside or near the Al Saa Restaurant in the Mansour District of Baghdad, Iraq on April 7 2003.

The percentage of Americans who say America did the right thing in going to war in Iraq { Putting a BOOT in their ASS Toby . Correll and struth  )  now stands at 37 percent. Fifty-nine percent say the war was a mistake, up from 55 percent in March of last year. While most Democrats and independents say the United States should not have gone to war, 63 percent of Republicans say it was the right thing to do.

Only one in five say the war was worth the loss of life and other costs that came with it. Seventy-two percent say the war was not worth it. The opinions of households with Iraq veterans mirror the opinions of all Americans on this question.

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Bakkus and Anthony Salvanto. August 26, 2010 6:30 PM Poll: Most Americans Say Iraq War Was a Mistake By Brian Montopoli

(The Angry American) Toby Kieth

American girls and American guys, will always stand up and salute.

We'll always recognize, when we see ol' glory flying,

There's a lot of men dead,

So we can sleep in peace at night when we lay down our heads.

My daddy served in the army where he lost his right eye,

But he flew a flag out in our yard 'til the day that he died.

He wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me.

To grow up and live happy in the land of the free.

Now this nation that I love is fallin' under attack.

A mighty sucker-punch came flying in from somewhere in the back.

Soon as we could see clearly through our big black eye,

Man, we lit up your world like the fourth of July.

Hey, Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,

And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.

And the eagle will fly and it's gonna be hell,

When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell.

And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.

Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.

Oh, justice will be served and the battle will rage:

This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage.

An' you'll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A.

'Cos we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.

Hey, Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,

And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.

And the eagle will fly and it's gonna be hell,

When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell.

And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.

Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.

Oh, oh.

Of the red, white and blue.

Oh, hey, oh.

Of my Red, White and Blue.


----------



## Correll (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > and B. Arabs suck at democracy.
> ...




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. 


The results were fairly disappointing. The Iraqis did fairly poorly at forming and maintaining their democracy and really shitty at DEFENDING their democracy from the Islamic Terrorists. 

That is the RESULTS of the war. Your response is quite helpful, IF your goal is to prevent learning ANYTHING from the war and to do what you can to increase the chance of repeating any and all mistakes that were made.


Is that your goal? Do you want MORE war?


----------



## Correll (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I have no opinion on such minute details of the issue.
> ...




America, in the aftermath of 9-11, did not have much patience.


Saddam had plenty of time. He choose to spend it fucking around. 


That was his call, and the results of his actions are his responsibility.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why was Biden’s advice to wait six months ignored?


Why do you answer that particular question  with untruth today with all that is known and “learned” about the ramp up to invading Iraq based on deliberate lies according to the greatest American Patriot ever to become President and re-elected as well - Donald J Trump?



Correll said:


> America, in the aftermath of 9-11, did not have much patience.



That is one of the most pathetic excuses from you warmongers for justifying what Obama warned you wouid be a dumb war.

And your excuse is not true to boot:

Were you alive and conscious in October 2002 when CBS did polling about American patience for avoiding war in Iraq following the 09/11/01 attacks?

I believe mostly the 4 out of 10 predominantly white conservative evangelical Christian Republicans that have ironically become Trump’s political base had no patience for waiting for evidence and coalition building before starting a war in Iraq. IE: you and struth  The rest of  us kept our heads about it.


*War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry*
BY JAIME HOLGUIN OCTOBER 6, 2002 / 5:38 PM / CBS

Americans generally support military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and while most think war is inevitable, there is no rush to begin it, according to a CBS News/New York Times Poll released Sunday.

War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry

The public overwhelmingly wants to get the United Nations' weapons inspectors back into Iraq and allied support before taking any military action. Americans also want a congressional vote before acting - and think members of Congress should be asking more questions about the implications of war with Iraq.

Americans are concerned about the wider implications of war with Iraq. They believe such a war will result in a long and costly military involvement; they believe it will lead to a wider war in the Middle East with other Arab nations and Israel; and that it could further undermine the U.S. economy.

Americans are also cool to the doctrine of pre-emption. They believe countries should not be able to attack each other unless attacked first - and less than half of Americans think the U.S., in particular, has the right to make pre-emptive strikes against nations it thinks may attack in the future.

Military Action and Weapons Inspections

*More people now than just two weeks ago favor giving the United Nations more time to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.*

U.S. SHOULD:
Now:
Take military action soon 30%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 63%

2 Weeks Ago:
Take military action soon 36%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 57%

Support for getting U.S. allies on board before any military action has remained constant.

Asked whether Iraq presents such a clear danger that the U.S. needs to act now, even without allied backing, or whether the U.S. needs to wait for such backing, Americans expressed the desire to wait.

U.S. SHOULD:
Now  Act now 29%
Wait for allies 65%


And American patience did not change with respect to weapons inspections and brad’s coalition support in the same poll in FEBRUARY 2003.

Americans have, in their guts, been up for nuking Saddam since 1991.    Countering this, however, is a feeling just as deep that the U.S. shouldn't go it alone. In this latest poll, 63 percent think the U.S. should wait for U.N. approval; 31 percent want to act now.​







						Polls, Powell And The Iraq Campaign
					

Commentary by <b>CBSNews.com Dick Meyer</B>




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Correll (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.
> ...




The general consensus was that Saddam was hiding wmds. 

I'm not interested in "establishing" that. It is weird of you to be concerned about it.  YOur talk of Christianity and brown people is even weirder.


----------



## Correll (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't know why you are making such a big deal over Struth's religion in this context.
> ...




So, in your mind, Catholics SHOULD defer to the opinion of the Pope in political matters?

That is quite an reactionary position. 

Would you be happy if Biden did so on the Abortion issue?


----------



## Correll (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 59 60 61 62, then we stopped  keeping a body count
> 
> Toby Kieth: 'Cos we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.
> 
> ...




I read to here and gave up on finding a point.


You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.


My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.


Your response was incoherent emotional rambling. 


Saddam as leader of a nation, had the responsibility to consider the dangers and risks of his policies. He Knew that 9-11 had happened and that America was not in a mood to be fucked with.

A responsible national leader would have decided to NOT fuck with America. 


That is my point.


Do you have a counter point you want to respond with? Cause your last post was senseless garbage.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> The general consensus was that Saddam was hiding wmds.


The overwhelming consensus in America and the entire world was to give the inspectors as much time as needed to then because SH was proactive in cooperation on process for several months and on substance for about a month before Bush decided it was necessary on March 17 2003.

What  is your point besides letting it be  known that you had no high regard for inspections that most rational informed  Americans had. You were in the Cheney white Evangelical warmonger minority segment of society with struth that did not want to be bothered with inspections and may have re-branded French Fries to Freedom Fries.


----------



## Correll (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The general consensus was that Saddam was hiding wmds.
> ...




Time needed to do WHAT, exactly?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> I read to here


That is the point of it. THANKS


----------



## Correll (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I read to here
> ...





You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.


My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.


Your response was incoherent emotional rambling.


Saddam as leader of a nation, had the responsibility to consider the dangers and risks of his policies. He Knew that 9-11 had happened and that America was not in a mood to be fucked with.

A responsible national leader would have decided to NOT fuck with America.


That is my point.


Do you have a counter point you want to respond with? Cause your last post was senseless garbage.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> Time needed to do WHAT, exactly?


DISARM IRAQ PEACEFULLY instead of disarming Iraq by killing innocent men women and children and the elderly by the decision to disarm Iraq in the way that you just read about, thank you:




NotfooledbyW said:


> .....061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003
> 
> The Pentagon reported on 7 April that .A B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.
> 
> ...



Repeat thousands of times because Correll had no patience to let UN inspectors finish disarming Iraq peacefully when SH was cooperating proactively.

Correll  preferred Dubya put a boot up SH’s ass knowing that innocent civilians ( the AMIN family ) would have their viable  lives ABORTED to get ‘er done all RED WHITE and BLUE like.


----------



## Correll (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Time needed to do WHAT, exactly?
> ...



THat makes no sense. Iraq did not HAVE wmds at that point in time. How could you "disarm" arms that were not there?


Your position, Biden's position, was senseless.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> THat makes no sense. Iraq did not HAVE wmds at that point in time. How could you "disarm" arms that were not there?


What?



Correll said:


> The general consensus was that Saddam was hiding wmds.



True! Bush started a war to disarm Iraq or so he says.

​President Discusses Beginning of Operation ... - George W. Bush White House Archives​
March 22, 2003 ... And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction,​


----------



## surada (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too
> ...



Good post..


----------



## StormAl (May 13, 2021)

Did you Support War in Iraq??​
Of course not


----------



## surada (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions before Bush invaded.

The Dual Cotainment Policy had worked for 20 years and these buffoons claimed Iraq was trucking their WMDs back and forth from Sudan to Syria. We are talking serious dumbassery.


----------



## surada (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Bush and Blair were all about attacking Iraq two years before 9-11. See Operation Mass Appeal.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Bush and Blair were all about attacking Iraq two years before 9-11


The key dynamic was that President Bush felt he could not go without Blair getting  United Nations Security Council authorization. That caused Bush to go to Congress to get the authorization to use military force if necessary with a promise to try to get a new United Nations Security Council resolution in order to disarm Iraq peacefully.

That is what produced 1441 and what began the American and British charade that both leaders were dedicated to disarming Iraq peacefully.

Just  found out a little while back that Correll  up until now didn’t understand the concept of disarming Iraq peacefully.

Its fascinating for me to see Trump Humpers squirm and try to wiggle their way out of their prior huge support for Bush’s invasion and eventual quagmire.

Now that Trump exposed President Bush those president Cheney for exactly what they are war mongering liars the minion little warmongers are beside them selves trying to figure out what to say.


----------



## surada (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Bush and Blair were all about attacking Iraq two years before 9-11
> ...




The Brits began selling the war on Iraq in late 1997-early 1998.. Operation Mass Appeal was all about calling down hate on Iraq/Saddam to justify their aggression.. Sir Derek Plumbly was in charge, He was the Booze Bombings guy in Saudi in late 2000. The made a mess of it and were blowing up each other in an effort to implicate the Palestinians.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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


Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq?


----------



## surada (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Idiots. You can't force democracy on Iraq or any other country.. They don't have a heritage of civil participation like the Greeks or Romans.

Americans who lived and worked in the ME all knew that. Diplomats, historians, oilmen and Arabs all knew that. But then Bush told Chirac he was fighting Gog and Magog.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> America, in the aftermath of 9-11, did not have much patience.



what is incoherent with this response: 



NotfooledbyW said:


> That is one of the most pathetic excuses from you warmongers for justifying what Obama warned you wouid be a dumb war.
> 
> And your excuse is not true to boot:
> 
> ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.
> 
> 
> My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.
> ...


My response was to give you polls from October 2002 to March 2003 to Show that your response was a lie. You don’t Speak for most Americans. I had patience in 2003 - All Americans except the future Trump warmongering base had patience.








NotfooledbyW said:


> *More people now than just two weeks ago favor giving the United Nations more time to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.*
> 
> U.S. SHOULD:
> Now:
> ...





NotfooledbyW said:


> Asked whether Iraq presents such a clear danger that the U.S. needs to act now, even without allied backing, or whether the U.S. needs to wait for such backing, Americans expressed the desire to wait.
> 
> U.S. SHOULD:
> Now Act now 29%
> Wait for allies 65%





NotfooledbyW said:


> FEBRUARY 2003.
> 
> Americans have, in their guts, been up for nuking Saddam since 1991. Countering this, however, is a feeling just as deep that the U.S. shouldn't go it alone. In this latest poll, 63 percent think the U.S. should wait for U.N. approval; 31 percent want to act now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> Arabs suck at democracy.



What is the basis for you racist generalization?



Correll said:


> 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.



The authority given to use military force in Iraq if necessary was to disarm Iraq of WMD. It was not to found a Democracy. Where are you getting it from?




Correll said:


> Time needed to do WHAT, exactly?



To disarm Iraq peacefully instead of violently as Bush decided to do.




NotfooledbyW said:


> DISARM IRAQ PEACEFULLY instead of disarming Iraq by killing innocent men women and children and the elderly



Your preference and  impatience for the latter is duly noted.





Correll said:


> THat makes no sense. Iraq did not HAVE wmds at that point in time. How could you "disarm" arms that were not there?



You are a fool for posting that one.




NotfooledbyW said:


> President Discusses Beginning of Operation ... - George W. Bush White House Archives
> March 22, 2003 ... And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction



That is why you are a fool. The mission was clear. Disarm Iraq of WMD without sufficient evidence that they were even There.




NotfooledbyW said:


> My response was to give you polls from October 2002 to March 2003 to Show that your response was a lie.



6 of 10 Americans had patience for peace. What the hell was your problem warmonger?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.



Really? What were Blix and el Baradai doing in Iraq under UN resolution 1441? Do you know who they are and the role they played in the run up to War in Iraq?


----------



## Indeependent (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.
> ...


*UN resolution 1441*
Why do idiots think a UN resolution has any authority?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> *UN resolution 1441*
> Why do idiots think a UN resolution has any authority?



Its the Diplomatic Efforts mentioned in US CONGRESS Authorization to Use MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ 2002.

Not sure what could be  “idiotic” about Bush promising to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoiding war.  BUT 1441 was the legal mechanism to confirm Iraq was disarmed through weapons inspections if and when  found  to be in full compliance with its disarmament obligations to the UN Security Council.  

The US is one of five permanent members dealing with issues of international law and matters of peace and  war.

Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441​
If we're to avert war, all nations must continue to pressure Saddam Hussein to accept this resolution and to comply with its obligations and his obligations.​
America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country. If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein.​
I've already met with the head of the U.N. Inspections Program and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has responsibility for nuclear matters. I've assured them that the United States will fully support their efforts, including a request for information that can help identify illegal activities and materials in Iraq.​
President George W. Bush - The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DCNovember 8, 2002​


----------



## Indeependent (May 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > *UN resolution 1441*
> ...


I was not, and am not, a fan of GWB.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> I was not, and am not, a fan of GWB.


Didn’t say you were. You asked a question about 1441 authority. I tried to answer it. Did it? I don’t know why you addressed your question to idiots.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> I think that the primary lessons to be learned for Iraq, are A. don't be too certain about intelligence reports,



What if  policy makers are hell bent on starting a war and become involved in the intelligence gathering operation to make intelligence gathering fit the agenda?  Is that the gatherers fault or is it corruption by the policy makers?

Cheney set up his own operation at the Pentagon.

The dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), together with the creation of an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers’ views sometime in 2002. (p. 50)​
GUIDE TO KEY FINDINGS Iraq’s WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not be ignored. They did not, however, pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region, or to global security. (p. 47)​
https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3FullText.pdf​
There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda. (p. 48)​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> Time needed to do WHAT, exactly?



To act morally and spiritually in order to save the  GONNA PUT A BOOT IN YOUR ASS mentality only as a last resort.
struth ‘s POPE:

“War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, *except as the very last option *and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations,” John Paul proclaimed on Jan. 13, 2003, even as he was sending his emissaries to Iraq, the U.S. and the United Nations to lobby for peaceful negotiations. “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations.”​
The Pope Pleaded. We Didn't Listen.​
The pope pointedly rejected such alarmist arguments and instead, on the eve of the invasion, *endorsed the European proposal to rely on U.N. inspectors in Iraq *and to provide a greater role for U.N. peacekeepers as an alternative to U.S. occupation of a crucial Muslim nation. “At this hour of international worry, we all feel the need to look to God and beg him to grant us the great gift of peace,” he said, *rejecting a rush to war.*​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.


Only an avid warmonger would call this “poking the bear”


Web results​CNN.com - Iraq welcomes 'American intelligence' to weapons hunt - Dec. 23, 2002


Dec 23, 2002 — "The true part of the half-truths appear in detail in our declaration." America can see for itself and send an agent to the country if it would like, Al-Saadi said.

www.cnn.com › WORLD › meast
CNN.com - Iraq dismisses U.S. and UK criticism - Dec. 22, 2002

Dec 22, 2002 — General Amir Al-Saadi, speaking on Sunday, also rejected UK and U.S. claims of "material omissions" in its declaration of its weapons programmes. Al -Saadi ...

www.nytimes.com › ... › Middle East
A Top Iraqi Aide Defies U.S. to Find Proof of Weapons - The New York Times

Dec 9, 2002 — Amir al-Saadi, said at a news conference that Iraq's 12,000-page declaration to ... alerted the C.I.A. and national laboratories to be ready to go into overdrive, ... How Much Further Could Their Money Go in the Bronx?

www.cbsnews.com › news › iraqs-in...
Iraq's Invitation To The CIA - CBS News

Dec 23, 2002 — Top Adviser Says American Spies Can Tour Alleged Weapons Sites. ... December 23, 2002 / 4:23 PM / CBS ... Saddam's scientific adviser Amir Al-Saadi accused the United States and Britain of ignoring Iraq's replies ...



www.foxnews.com › story › sa...
Saddam Extends Invite to CIA | Fox News

Dec 22, 2002 — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to ... of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts  ...



www.abc.net.au › stories
AM - Iraq claims US allegation on weapons declaration is "baseless" - ABC

AM - Monday, 23 December , 2002 1010 ... General Amir Al-Saadi says Iraq will answer any questions put to it by the Bush and Blair ... Amir Al-Saadi, says America can go even further, offering to welcome a CIA agent to help the  ...



www.cbc.ca › news › world › ir...
Iraq denies U.S., British accusations | CBC News - CBC.ca

Dec 22, 2002 — CBC News · Posted: Dec 22, 2002 10:37 PM ET | Last Updated: ... Amir al-Saadi told a news conference in Baghdad charges that Iraq's ... U.S. officials say they will provide more detailed information with  ...



news.bbc.co.uk › middle_east
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq challenges US and UK on arms

Sunday, 22 December, 2002, 20:14 GMT ... General Amir al-Saadi said the allegations date back from the old days of "discredited inspections" by ... He said CIA inspectors could go to Iraq to identify suspect sites to the UN weapons inspectors.



www.irishexaminer.com › ...
Iraq challenges allies over arms declaration - Irish Examiner

Mon, 23 Dec, 2002 - 00:00. Hassan Hafidh. Amir al-Saadi, an adviser to President Saddam Hussein, held a news conference in an apparent public relations drive ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> There is a lot to be learned from that war. If you lie about what actually happened, you ensure that we do not learn it, and thus are more likely to repeat the same mistakes.


So why did you come here with your partisan attack against me and your partisan silence on @struths lies and obnoxious partisan hack false attack on President Joe Biden?

Why did you bring these two pro war Toby Kieth falsehoods to this thread?


Correll said:


> Saddam had plenty of time. He choose to spend it fucking around.





Correll said:


> My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.





Correll said:


> He Knew that 9-11 had happened and that America was not in a mood to be fucked with.





Correll said:


> Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit.





Correll said:


> Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.



Is this now become a hit and run?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > THat makes no sense. Iraq did not HAVE wmds at that point in time. How could you "disarm" arms that were not there?
> ...




Your whole point was that Biden wanted to give the inspectors more time to "disarm" Saddam.

As the wmds had already been destroyed, BIden's desire to give the inspectors more time to disarm them, was doomed to failure. 

The bit where you keep pretending to not understand me, when I respond to what you actually say?


That is you actively trying to bury your OWN points in a confusion of back and forth, because on some level, you know that your points are bs. 


What was your goal in starting this thread? What point are you trying to make?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




The Containment Policy was working? DId you forget about the Food For Fuel scandal? 

Why do you never hold Saddam responsible for his choices?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Irrelevant to my point.  Why are you getting involved in the discussion, if you are not interested in what we were discussing?

Rhetorical question. EVERYONE KNOWS WHY.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Bush and Blair were all about attacking Iraq two years before 9-11
> ...




WTF are you talking about?


In my first response to your OP, I happily admitted that I supported the war.

"Warmongering liars"? Trump? What the fuck does Trump have to do with a war that was years before he was relevant?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. 

Note sure what you mean by "used by". There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case.


And they won. 


Why do you always cut away context of points? Are you even aware of your reason?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




It was claimed they did have such a history. And regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it was part of the winning argument.  This is historical now. 


A more important point, was how did it work out. It is odd that you didn't go there.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > America, in the aftermath of 9-11, did not have much patience.
> ...




So, to be clear, you are arguing that the US, was going to be happy to wait for Saddam to... do something and not attack him for his repeatedly provocations?


To counter the historical record of America getting tired of his fucking around and just invading his ass and occupying his country, you...have...a... poll....?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.
> ...




LOL!!! "Future warmongering Trump base"?

Trump ran on non, or at least reduced interventionism. 

He is the first president in a long time, to NOT get US involved in a fresh war, during his administration.


What the hell point are you trying to even make here? What is your goal here?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Arabs suck at democracy.
> ...




1. SHove your talk of racism up your ass, asshole.

2. The lack of democracy in the arab world and the great difficulty that the Iraqis had in crafting a democracy.

3. Wow. You mean that a formal stated intention is not the whole of the situation? You just learned that now? LOL!!!!!

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


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.
> ...




Sounds familiar. It was a long time ago. My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit. 

You got a counter point to make to that, make it quickly and clearly. Your desire to keep going back and forth to hide how weak your points are, is boring.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the primary lessons to be learned for Iraq, are A. don't be too certain about intelligence reports,
> ...




It is a professionals job to give his clear, and honest and professional opinion to his customer, regardless of whether or not it is what they want to hear.

If any professional cannot do that, they should not be in their profession.


We have a system where, almost always, the person making the decisions will be an amateur in any specific field they have to make the call in.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Time needed to do WHAT, exactly?
> ...




Yes, I was aware of that argument back when it was made. THe response was, generally speaking, that we hade already given Saddam enough time, and that he was not a good faith actor and that more time would be a waste. 


What is the point of rehashing a debate from almost twenty years ago?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.
> ...




Did you do that yourself, or is there a site where political hacks cherry pick stories from that time to give a misleading impression to gullible young people that weren't there?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> As the wmds had already been destroyed, BIden's desire to give the inspectors more time to disarm them, was doomed to failure.



You left “peacefully” out. 

My whole point is based on the desire to give the inspectors more time to disarm Iraq *peacefully* The Biden way instead of disarming Iraq *violently* and costing 500,000 innocent Iraqi lives 5000 American and 7 trillion added to the taxpayer debt according to Trump. That is the Bush way that you are defending.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > There is a lot to be learned from that war. If you lie about what actually happened, you ensure that we do not learn it, and thus are more likely to repeat the same mistakes.
> ...




I came here, in this thread, to answer your question in the hopes that the discussion would be one of what should America and or the world learn from that war. 


I figured more likely, it would be some partisan hit job, where someone like you would just being throwing shit at his enemies, and I would end up calling you on you bullshit. 


Why did YOU come here, and start this thread? What is your intent?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> stories from that time to give a misleading impression



With you it’s never about the context/content it’s always about the format, style and motive. 

What is the misleading impression? This was Fox News reporting on a public Announcement in NEW YORK CITY BY the equivalent of IRAQ!s  secretary of State at the Time.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA​By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

Are you suggesting it did not happen.?

what exactly have I cherry picked and misrepresented by posting the facts.

So what do you think was President George W. Bush’s reasoning for not accepting the offer or at least testing to see if it was genuine?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > stories from that time to give a misleading impression
> ...




And again, you cut almost everything. 


You  are pretending to not understand that people, especially politicians, will SAY one thing, and then DO another.


IN effect, you are pretending to be profoundly retarded. 


Knock this shit off.


----------



## surada (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Food for fuel is not a big deal.. Iraqis have to eat and so do their children. The war on Iraq was a disaster and still is. You know Saddam asked the US to lift sanctions on the oil sector in 1997.  Without reserve management you ultimately destroy the reserve.

The cost would have been less than 20 billion. Halliburton hired Cheney to lobby for lifting sanctions.. He failed. More stupidity.

We did everything wrong..


----------



## surada (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > stories from that time to give a misleading impression
> ...



Maybe Bush was still using on the sly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> What the fuck does Trump have to do with a war that was years before he was relevant?


I didn’t say Donald J Trump had any thing to do with the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## surada (May 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Note sure what you mean by "used by".



When and in what constitutional or any other legal framework was the GingrichKrauthammer nation building case Presented to the American people and Congress of the United States of America  by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq as a case for self defense against the continuing threat of Saddam Hussein being the dictator of Iraq?

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?


----------



## surada (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Too late. When Bush attacked Iraq he assured Iran's ascendancy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, to be clear, you are arguing that the US, was going to be happy to wait for Saddam to... do something and not attack him for his repeatedly provocations?



We were discussing patience were we not? Patience to have solid world supported evidence that Iraq was indeed a severe enough potential threat because of continued possession of weapons of mass destruction. You claim with no supporting information that  America didn’t have patience for that.  

You were wrong. 

So why are you bringing up being happy? Did you do some research to make sure there are no polls Regarding American happiness so I cant prove you wrong? 

You did not have patience like the  six out of ten Americans did. And since you brought up happiness. Are you happy that President George W. Bush’s lack of patience, now knowing it cost the American taxpayer $7 trillion according to former president Donald J Trump?

That is not to mention the loss of lives and property and relocation and devastation due to your lack of patience created in the world because you based your country’s military conduct in world affairs along the lines of a country music song by Toby Keith. Put a boot up Saddam’s ASS.


----------



## surada (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Did you ever live in the ME? Iraq or Iran or KSA or Kuwait... anywhere?


----------



## surada (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, to be clear, you are arguing that the US, was going to be happy to wait for Saddam to... do something and not attack him for his repeatedly provocations?
> ...



Dubya is very likeable, but dumb as a stump. He couldn't have been more wrong in his attack on Iraq..  He sure put Iran in the catbird seat. Cheney was a school teacher before his political career so he didn't  know jack shit about the ME or the oil business.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> He is the first president in a long time, to NOT get US involved in a fresh war, during his administration.


Obama didn’t.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What the fuck does Trump have to do with a war that was years before he was relevant?
> ...




You keep bringing him up, in this thread. Why?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

surada said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Food for Fuel SCANDAL, not the program as it was intended. Try to be less dishonest.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Note sure what you mean by "used by".
> ...




1. We have not operated by the Constitutional framework of declared war in either of our lifetimes. And you know that, so your request is relevant only in that it shows you are not engaging in good faith debate.

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.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




When you post replies to my posts, please address the points I made in my post. Just throwing some shit against the wall, that is sort of maybe kind of related to the subject being discussed, is not a real contribution.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is a professionals job



Will you answer this question.


NotfooledbyW said:


> What if policy makers are hell bent on starting a war and become involved in the intelligence gathering operation to make intelligence gathering fit the agenda? Is that the gatherers fault or is it corruption by the policy makers?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, to be clear, you are arguing that the US, was going to be happy to wait for Saddam to... do something and not attack him for his repeatedly provocations?
> ...




Yep. And your position is not sensible as I have repeatedly pointed out, and you just cut away and ignore.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Nope. How is that relevant to my point(s)?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He is the first president in a long time, to NOT get US involved in a fresh war, during his administration.
> ...



Tell that to Libya and Syria.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It is a professionals job
> ...




I was quite clear in the portion of my post you cut, that my answer was "it is the professional's job to give his honest professional judgement, even if it is what his customer does not want to hear".


This bit, where you cut the majority of a post, and then response with questions that were already answered, 


it is the kind of game one plays, when one, (ie you), knows on some level, that you are in the wrong on this issue.


If you were confident in your position, you would have simply and directly responded to my very clear and understandable point, instead of playing stupid games. 


This should be a red flag to you, that you need to reexamine your position and assumptions. On some level, you know that you are wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. We have not operated by the Constitutional framework of declared war in either of our lifetimes.



are you saying the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. We have not operated by the Constitutional framework of declared war in either of our lifetimes.
> ...




I said what I said. If you want to understand more, don't cut away the majority of what I said.


Your asking for additional information, when you ignore most of what I put down, is not very  convincing. 


I have asked you repeatedly what is your intent with this thread. YOu have not answered. You just cut it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Tell that to Libya and Syria.



Libya was military action authorized by the UNSC and the ARAB LEAGUE to stop genocide.

The UNITED STATES is a member in that council.  Its over. We are not bogged down in a war ground forces a were required there. Basically enforcing a NO FLY ZONE.

Syria is a continuation of the war on terror since we were attacked under Bush’s watch. NOT A FRESH WAR.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> I was quite clear in the portion of my post you cut,



You didn’t answer my question at all in reference to the policymakers injecting themselves into the intelligence gathering process like Cheney did at the Pentagon. Cheney created his own intelligence agency. Is that acceptable to you.



Correll said:


> I said what I said. If you want to understand more, don't cut away the majority of what I said.



No stop crying. if anyone wants to see the full context just click on the excerpt I’m citing.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I was quite clear in the portion of my post you cut,
> ...




You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence. I clearly stated it was the responsibility of the intelligence professionals. 


Would  you like to ask me the same question a few more times? Would you mind if I just cut and paste from now on? Or you know, you could stop cutting away the answer every post.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence.


Nope. You are a liar.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence.
> ...




Hey, I have an idea. Cut more from your posts and my answers. That will make the discussion clearer and more coherent. 


What is your intent in this thread? Especially in the context of the way you keep bringing up Trump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Hey, I have an idea.



Why don’t you answer this question ?


NotfooledbyW said:


> What if policy makers are hell bent on starting a war and become involved in the intelligence gathering operation to make intelligence gathering fit the agenda? Is that the gatherers fault or is it corruption by the policy makers?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I have an idea.
> ...




I've lost count on how many times I have answered this, and you have cut it, so that you can ask the question  again.

BUt here you go again. It is the responsibility of the professional intelligence officers to give their honest professional judgements and advice, even if it is NOT what their bosses want to hear. 





You  obviously just want to use the war to smear your political enemies. That is all this is to you. Your pretense of caring about anyone  or anything else is just bullshit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence.



See what you do to avoid answering a valid question regarding the creation of Intel on WMD in Iraq by the Bush Adminstration outside of the professional agencies created to do it.

Had I wanted to know who you consider responsible for reporting accurate intelligence I would have asked “who do you consider responsible for reporting accurate intelligence?

However the fact is  I asked this:



NotfooledbyW said:


> What if policy makers are hell bent on starting a war and become involved in the intelligence gathering operation to make intelligence gathering fit the agenda? Is that the gatherers fault or is it corruption by the policy makers?



Your uncut non-answer:

BUt here you go again. It is the responsibility of the professional intelligence officers to give their honest professional judgements and advice, even if it is NOT what their bosses want to hear.​


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence.
> ...




Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped. 

You remind me of my buddy and his talk about Big Foot. I'm sure you could draw lots of lines between lots of dots and craft a great story out of it. 


YOu do not have the credibility to make me care enough to pay attention to your... pet peeves.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > . It is the responsibility of the professional intelligence officers to give their honest professional judgements and advice, even if it is NOT what their bosses want to hear



what if policy makers inserted themselves into the intelligence gathering process to produce their own intelligence to guarantee they hear what they want to hear? Is that ok with you.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.​
Special investigation: The spies who pushed for war on Iraq​The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.​
The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.​


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Yeah, I already addressed that. Did you cut my response, or is this from before? I can't tell, because you confuse the discussion with your games. 

Hey, maybe I should cut the shit out of your posts and start playing games with what you said in my response? 


If we are not doing anything else here, I will start doing that too. I will pm you, if I need advice on how to be dishonest or pretend to miss an obvious point.


Wish me luck.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yeah, I already addressed that.


You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.


Are you saying the OSP did not exist? Is that the answer to the question? Is the report that I am referring to part of a conspiracy theory?


Special investigation: The spies who pushed for war on Iraq
The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I already addressed that.
> ...




Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.

You remind me of my buddy and his talk about Big Foot. I'm sure you could draw lots of lines between lots of dots and craft a great story out of it.


YOu do not have the credibility to make me care enough to pay attention to your... pet peeves.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.
> ...




i'm sayhing that a standard part of any good conspiracy theory is to focus on out of context details, given the viewer the choice of accepting their conspiracy theory or launching their own personal investigation of long ago and far away events. 


You might have a factoid that is relevant and means something. Or you might not. There might be completely reasonable explanations for what to you looks like something sooo terrible. Or you might be lying. 


I'm not prepared to spend the time investigating it. 


THe place I am at, we had this debate back before the war. You people had your chance to make you case. You failed.


Rehashing it now, is a game for history or conspiracy buffs. 


Of course what you are really about, is just using it to smear your enemies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> i'm sayhing that a standard part of any good conspiracy theory is to focus on out of context details,


What out of context details? I am asking you if you believe the report and that they SP did exist. It’s existence was real or not real. Which do you believe?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> I think that the primary lessons to be learned for Iraq, are A. don't be too certain about intelligence reports,


What if the problem regarding Iraq 
 was not created by the intelligence community but rather by the policy makers infiltrating and or creating their own intelligence office to produce intelligence that suits an agenda for War.

Is there a lesson to be learned starting with acknowledging that it happened? 

Or should we just blame the established intelligence community for leading the policymakers into making an honest mistake?


----------



## Batcat (May 14, 2021)

I was for the war in Iraq as long as weapons of mass destruction were found. 

They never were.  

Either our wonderful intelligence agencies had their heads up their ass or Bush the Younger wanted to outdo his dad by invading Iraq and eliminating Saddam Hussein. Of course the military industrial complex made a fortune nation building in Iraq and you can bet the corruption involved in that effort was staggering.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (May 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


You are an Islamist. You are biased


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> You people had your chance to make you case. You failed.


I want to be clear that I understand you correctly. 

Are you saying those 6 out of 10 Americans opposed to the war being launched on March 17, 2003 ranging from Barack Obama and Senator Joe Biden and down to a little oh me are “failures” of some sort because “us people” could not convince President George W Bush to allow the inspection process to continue in order to produce the best solid evidence of WMD existence or non-existence in Iraq and in accordance with 1441 and and as preferred by just about the entire world population including the Pope in Rome.

We failed? The $5 trillion cost to America alone and half a million dead that Bush paid to find out the evidence he had on March 17 2003 to launch his preemptive war was not true is on us because we could not stop Bush from doing what he did, when he did, and how badly he did it?

Its that what you are saying?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > i'm sayhing that a standard part of any good conspiracy theory is to focus on out of context details,
> ...



Don't care. It was twenty years ago. We had a national debate, your side had plenty of time to make it's case and you failed to do so.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Let’s stick with the facts. Nothing more. Thus was a fact. It really Happened. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> Saddam Extends Invite to CIA​By | Fox News
> Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.



This is your response: (click on it to see 


Correll said:


> You are pretending to not understand that people, especially politicians, will SAY one thing, and then DO another.



May I interpret this to mean that you were telling me that Saddam Hussein was telling the President of the United States that CIA agents could come into Iraq to help verify with United Nations inspectors that Iraq no longer was in possession of WMD, however you have special verifiable knowledge that Saddam Hussain did not really mean that?

So sticking with facts on all matters within this discussion, you will verify for me the fact that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no intention to allow CIA agents into Iraq in order to confirm or deny the presence of WMD?

I will wait for your verification before proceeding with further points to be made.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the primary lessons to be learned for Iraq, are A. don't be too certain about intelligence reports,
> ...




A bigger lesson would be, to learn the difference between guesswork and established fact and to think of the distinction when making policy.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You people had your chance to make you case. You failed.
> ...




This nation has many structures in place to balance power. Polls are not one of them.


Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war. 

You brought it up, in an attempt at the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion, because you have no logical supporting argument.


What you expected to happen here, is a bunch of like minded libs, to have a circle jerk saying vague, negative shit about people on the other side and then taking turns telling each other how smart and pretty you each are.


Unfortunately for that plan, I came along and insisted on actually addressing the negative shit you say.


Sorry to rain on your circle jerk.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> A bigger lesson would be, to learn the difference between guesswork and established fact and to think of the distinction when making policy.


Simple enough but what if policymakers corrupt the system? How do you prevent that? When repression of established fact is the goal not the rule.

We learn nothing if the war promoting policymakers are not condemned if and when it’s confirmed that they did indeed corrupt the intelligence gathering process specifically to start a war.

What I’m doing here he’s trying to squash the tendency Buy those who supported the war to write the invasion of Iraq off as an honest mistake made by the intelligence community with regard to Iraq’s possession of WMD.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.


What rulebook are you pulling that from, goofball? Jesus H Christ!


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Let’s stick with the facts. Nothing more. Thus was a fact. It really Happened.
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




You may not.


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What I’m doing here he’s trying to squash the tendency Buy those who supported the war to write the invasion of Iraq off as an honest mistake made by the intelligence community with regard to Iraq’s possession of WMD.



To what end?


----------



## Correll (May 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.
> ...



It is called logic. That you lost the debate happened. You whined about the cost of the war as an Appeal to Emotion to distract from your inability to support your point about how the discussion went. 


That is also why you cut all that from the post before you replied. Because otherwise, your reply would have looked stupid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.



It is when those who Consider the astronomical cost of the war in lives and dollars to be a success.




struth said:


> The Iraq War was a success...




I know you don’t think it was a success, but if you looked at it from a cost to benefit analysis would you say it was worth the cost to make sure that Saddam Hussein did not possess chemical or biological weapons to be handed off to a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda?

Or would it have been better on the cost to benefit basis to allow the 200 weapons inspectors that were in Iraq for 90 days receiving proactive cooperation from Saddam Hussein to have the additional 90 days they requested to complete the process. That too, even looking forward would have made sure that Saddam Hussein could not handover chemical and biological weapons to a terrorist organization? In fact the peaceful process with a verified it faster, when looking ahead to make the choice because the disarming by violence means lead to disruption and chaos within the Iraqi military that if WMD were there containment and control would have collapsed.

Disarming by peaceful means no lives very little of the US taxpayer dollars to discover the exact same thing. Saddam Hussain in March 2003 did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Of course I was wrong about zero casualties by the peaceful method because there was one.

A UNMOVIC Inspector was killed in a car crash doing what he hoped would avert war. It was a traffic accident. George Bush spit on his grave when he kicked his fellow dedicated inspectors out.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 14, 2021)

Let’s go through Correll ’s entrance to this thread - focusing on what is fact and what is fiction.

This discussion was going on.  Its a quote from Joe BIden:



struth said:


> “In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he may use them or share them with terrorists,”



In response to struth I wrote:



NotfooledbyW said:


> I agree with that 1000 percent. What is wrong with Biden saying that ever. Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March to start a war. That is not Bush being concerned. That was Bush lying to make his concerns into making a case for war.



The lie I was referring in the above was specific . “Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March (2003) to start a war.”     I was not referring to any intelligence gathering prior to the UN inspectors’ return to Iraq in December 2002. This is where Correll  joined the discussion. 



Correll said:


> Could have been an honest mistake.



To be clear I asked “by whom?” and then I cited the specific lie and asked a few questions addressing @Correll’s “honest mistake” defense for Bush and his war supporters.



NotfooledbyW said:


> By whom?
> 
> “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.
> 
> ...



The answer came back with the  everybody is wrong so nobody is wrong so  let’s just forget about about it and move on.



Correll said:


> By everyone involved.


I don’t accept the current whitewash attempts by the 4 out of 10 who got their war - made up It had to be just about all Republicans in 2003.

And they didn’t change when Trump ‘ birthered’ his way into their hearts and minds and told them straight from the start that Bush deliberately lied them into a stupid mistake of a war.

From the OP this was the breakdown in 2015 during the campaign.
​“Going to war with Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 59 - 32 percent. Republicans support the 2003 decision 62 - 28 percent, while opposition is 78 - 16 percent among Democrats and 65 - 26 percent among independent voters.”​​What’s interesting to me is that 60% number matches exactly the number in polls prior to the invasion that wanted Bush to let the inspectors continue.

The inspection’s meant nothing to the war supporters in 2003 and they mean absolutely nothing to Correll today.

Correll  believes in a series of Iraq common myths and has a total lack of comprehension of what disarming Iraq peacefully means when the fact turned out to be there were no WMD to be found by the invading army.

Another interesting thing I’m not seeing much anymore on one of the earliest WMD myths. The one that goes like ‘Saddam had them but they were hauled in Russian trucks and buried in the desert somewhere in SYRIA  or are out on a ship circling on the ocean.’

whatever myths Correll believes they will be debunked here.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.



Regime change was NEVER argued or proposed to be a justification to start the war against Iraq.

The word “if” never had bigger significance.

Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but *if* we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And *if* we go to war, there will be a regime change.​
Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life.   BUSH MARCH 6 2003.​ 
Q Mr. President, good evening. If you order war, can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, dead or alive?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
Office of the Press Secretary March 6, 2003

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change. And replacing this cancer inside of Iraq will be a government that represents the rights of all the people, a government which represents the voices of the Shia and Sunni and the Kurds.



Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
Office of the Press Secretary March 6, 2003

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there's risks in any military operation; I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.


----------



## Correll (May 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.
> ...




Nope. DIscussing the scale of the stakes is not relevant to discussing the fact that we had the national discussion and your side failed to make it's case. 


That was the point we were discussing. YOu went to an emotional appeal because you could not defend your position logically.


We HAD  a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Rehashing some of the minute points now, out of context, asking me, twenty years after the fact to answer questions that were answered to the satisfaction of the nation by other people THEN, is moot.


Discussing history is valid. Reenacting debates, and pretending that you are making a point because I am not as versed as the leaders of the time were at the time, is not. 

Neither is appealing to emotion when you get called on it.


----------



## Correll (May 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Let’s go through Correll ’s entrance to this thread - focusing on what is fact and what is fiction.
> 
> This discussion was going on.  Its a quote from Joe BIden:
> 
> ...



I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion. 

Trump did, at one point in the campaign state his opinion that bush lied to get us into war.

I disagreed with him on that, but supported Trump based on other issues, such as his policy platform and him not being a democrat. 


The problem you have here, is that you personally and liberals in general, have become such rigid partisan ideologues, that ANY disagreement with your agenda is TABOO and thus the person disagreeing must be "cancelled".


That is your side's zealotry. Over here on our side, it is completely possible for Trump and I to disagree on a matter of history, and for me to still support him politically. 


Your attempt to show that this normal and healthy behavior is somehow "wrong" is really just showcasing how insane you libs have become.


----------



## Correll (May 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.
> ...





Wow. You mean that President Bush's stated reasons for the invasion were different from my personal reasons for supporting the invasion?


OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!

That you think this means anything, is just you being hysterical.


----------



## surada (May 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Formulated in 1996 for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Clean Break report, prepared by an Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) team headed by former Department of Defense senior official Richard Perle, has become known for its prescient statements regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent military interventions and civil wars in Libya and Syria.

 The largely neoconservative study group who put the report together, of both US and Israeli citizenship, include Douglas J. Feith, 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the Bush administration, and Meyrav Wurmser, who helped to found the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Collectively, the group have attended Bilderberg meetings and held roles in the US State Department, as well as membership in a number of think tanks, such as the Hudson Institute, the Trilateral Commission, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

This document is a PDF conversion of a web transcription of the report which can be found below:




__





						The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Jerusalem, Washington
					





					web.archive.org


----------



## surada (May 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Let’s go through Correll ’s entrance to this thread - focusing on what is fact and what is fiction.
> ...



Everyone in the ME knew Bush was lying.. Trump actually supported the war on a Howard Stern broadcast.


----------



## Correll (May 15, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




The neo cons supported the war. There are supposedly a lot of jews among their number. What is your point? How does that relate to anything in my post that you were responding to?


----------



## surada (May 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



The invasion of Iraq was to satisfy the Israelis.. Same with the demands to destabilize and isolate Syria.  Haven't you ever read Clean Break Strategy?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence


You are a liar.

And I’m beginning to see by the questions you answer and by the questions put forth that you do not answer how they form the pattern in your mind and in your sense of morality on matters of war and peace on a national and religious level. I have begun to understand that you do not personally care about having evidence of a threat to America‘s national security as a prerequisite or requirement before the our commander in chief decides to send American servicemen and women have not into combat - to be killed and to kill at taxpayers expense and in your name or.

Acts of Congress to you personally have little relevance to the strategic or moral right or wrong In starting or instigating a major war as in invading a sovereign nation Lake Iraq without the support of the international community.

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


Does Section 3 (a) (1) of the October 2002 AUMF  have any meaningful relevance in a discussion regarding your support of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003?


----------



## struth (May 15, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


haha


----------



## Correll (May 15, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




There were lots of different reasons to support the invasion. Different people had different motivations.

There were equally different reasons to oppose the invasion.


----------



## Correll (May 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence
> ...




Dude. I stopped reading there. You are just playing stupid troll games.


You've admitted what this is about. YOu are confused about how people that supported Bush then, can support TRump now, even though Trump at one point said that Bush lied.


You are just a pathetic partisan zealot.


----------



## surada (May 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Have you ever been to Iraq or Iran? Did you ever work in the oil business in the Middle East? You don't seem to know anything at all about the situation or why Bush's invasion was based on lies and was an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## surada (May 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Trump supported the invasion of Iraq on the Howard Stern show.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> I stopped reading there.


Truth hurts people who ‘support ’BIG LIES’ whatever those lies may be.

"The 2020 Presidential Election was, by far, the greatest Election Fraud in the history,"​​“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”​​"Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President who would be VETOING the horrific Socialistic Bills that are rapidly going through Congress, including Open Borders, High Taxes, Massive Regulations, and so much else!”​​​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> YOu are confused about how people that supported Bush then, can support TRump now, even though Trump at one point said that Bush lied.



I’m not confused at all. I understand full well that America’s white evangelical Christian nationalists back in March 2003 were not concerning themselves in the slightest way with whether or not Bush was telling the truth or lying, or any shady crap in between, about Saddam Hussein hiding WMD from UN inspectors.

Truth, facts and material evidence on a potential Islamist threat to the existence of a Christian Nation did not matter to the white conservative evangelical Christian Republican base for finding “just cause” by their evangelical (Jesus is my fave philosopher ) Christian President to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom with the mission  to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD (that were not there)

I ubderstand because it is clear that the  solid base of Republican voters were operating under the ‘faith based’ mass self-delusion that  their godly  “Chosen” Christian Nation was invading a Muslim Nation, if not God’s Will, then at least Blessed  by GOD Himself. .

The invasion of Iraq joined Christian faith with American foreign affairs.

On March 19, as Bush added the words "God bless our troops" to the order launching Operation Iraqi Freedom to disarm Saddam Hussein, he was not just dressing up policy with pious language—he was summing up more than a year's intensive thinking about the relation of his Christian faith and American foreign affairs.​The Bush Doctrine​​Leading  *conservative* Catholics, Jews, and evangelicals, were getting the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to spread the Gospel Turing the barrel of a gun.

What rational person could argue with that?  So  when Iraq became the deadly costly clusterfuck that it  was -  What about God’s PLAN  ???   Oh! God often works in mysterious ways.

Mysterious Indeed . God Mysteriously Chose this to try again becausec God can BLESS whatever the hell he wants. 

TRUMP: But think of that as of a couple months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East, and the Middle East is far worse now than it was 17 years ago when they went in, and not so intelligently, I have to say, went in.” — rAP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war​



Correll said:


> There were lots of different reasons to support the invasion. Different people had different motivations.


----------



## Correll (May 16, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




I don't need to travel to the ME, to know that there were plenty of people HERE who supported the war for reasons that had nothing to do with the "satisfying the Israelis".


----------



## Correll (May 16, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Yep. At one point he supported the war, and at a later time he stated his belief that Bush lied to get us into that war. 


I mean, wow. People change their opinions over time, especially in the light of new information. 


That you feel that is some type of gotcha, is just you being a partisan zealot.


----------



## Correll (May 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > YOu are confused about how people that supported Bush then, can support TRump now, even though Trump at one point said that Bush lied.
> ...




Wow. That was a big heaping helping of crazy and anti-Christian bigotry and anti-white racism all mixed together. 


POINT ONE. Bush's/Trump's base, that you are so.... fixated on, 


does not equal with The Religious RIght. The RR is a PART of the REpublican Base, not the whole of it, you seem confused on that point


AND, your bigoted take on their...no, your bigoted characterization of them, is just... you being a nut.


----------



## MisterBeale (May 16, 2021)

Which one?  The first one or the second one?

Both were hoaxes.


----------



## surada (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Trump couldn't find Iraq on a map.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.


Because to Iraq invasion supporters such as yourself (a) those who were opposed to disarming Iraq through violence and regime change and in favor of disarming Iraq by the peaceful means of world supported inspections were motivated by anti-American, anti-Israel, atheistic, Islamo-terror sympathizers and  MARXISTS topped off with anti-white racism as well. Such as  ‘Gonna be a dumb war’ Barrack HUSSEIN Obama........... and (b) the ball was not dropped by America’s chosen People, the true patriots that love JESUS and defend America. Any suggestion that true patriots were wrong has to be a conspiracy theory dreamed up by anti-American, anti-Israel, atheistic, Islamo-terror sympathizers and Marxists topped off with their  anti-white racism.   ...... and (c)  The ball was dropped by Arabs for the very simple reason that when the God Blessed Christian Nation of AMERICA gave them an opportunity, its obvious that was the mistake. Those different kind of people blew it.



Correll said:


> and B. Arabs suck at democracy.



Then a new white Christian America First actor comes around and says NEVER MORE - Help the ARAB nevermore.

At a forum hosted by NBC on 7 September, Trump suggested oil seizure would have been a way to pay for the Iraq war, saying: “We go in, we spend $3tn, we lose thousands and thousands of lives, and then … what happens is we get nothing. You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils.”​Trump's plan to seize Iraq's oil: 'It's not stealing, we're reimbursing ourselves'​​He added: “One of the benefits we would have had if we took the oil is Isis would not have been able to take oil and use that oil to fuel themselves.”​​Giuliani defends Trump idea to take Middle East oil: 'Anything is legal' in war​​The idea predates Trump’s presidential campaign. As far back as 2011, he was telling the Wall Street Journal that this was his policy for Iraq. “You heard me, I would take the oil,” he said. “I would not leave Iraq and let Iran take the oil.” And he insisted to ABC News that this did not amount to national theft.​​“You’re not stealing anything,” Trump said. “We’re reimbursing ourselves … at a minimum, and I say more. We’re taking back $1.5tn to reimburse ourselves.”​


----------



## surada (May 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.
> ...



Trump is a bloody moron. The oil business HATES a war zone. Production collapses, costs double. Everthing is COST PLUS.. and it takes years to recover production levels.  Idiots. Everybody in the ME knows that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> The RR is a PART of the REpublican Base, not the whole of it, you seem confused on that point


I’m not confused. White Evangelical Christians are the voters that give Republicans their only realistic path to ever winning the White House and  holding a majority in Senate.

That Christian NATION oriented voter base holds the view as you do that former President Obama is an anti-American, anti-Israel, Marxists topped off with anti-white racism.  There is no way that voter base would ever hear or consider his legitimate views regarding Iraq when there is a white evangelical patriotic Christian man in the White
House telling them what he wants  them to believe.

That is just the reality and it needs to be kept in the open specifically when discussing the invasion of Iraq and the devastating consequences thereafter.

Because of that voting block cannot be held accountable (You and struth included)  for its crucial role leading Dubya to make his DISASTROUS and impatient  decision, then future generations will never learn the lessons to be gained  from that horrible war. It was a  mistake that George W. Bush made with the full support and cheerleading  of white evangelical Christian America to invade a Muslim sovereign nation which at the time was no where’s near any kind of immanent or obvious threat to our national security.  The  decision to invade was made for other reasons in You view.  That is morally wrong and and legalistically stupid.

And we see with Trump still stirring up the same religious base with continuing still with his own very God ordained  big lie,

"The 2020 Presidential Election was, by far, the greatest Election Fraud in the history," continued Trump. "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President who would be VETOING the horrific Socialistic Bills that are rapidly going through Congress, including Open Borders, High Taxes, Massive Regulations, and so much else!"​


----------



## Correll (May 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Twenty years after the fact, I can't be bothered with your conspiracy theories on how exactly the ball was dropped.
> ...




1. Not at all. THere were plenty of valid reasons to oppose the war. Nothing I have ever said implied otherwise.

2. With regard to the failure of intelligence, some of those that failed, in our intelligence agencies would have been "patriots". NOthing I have ever said implied otherwise.

3. Your hysterical ranting about... Anti-Americans and/or Patriots and/or Christians, is very, very strange and seems...completely irrelevant to the topic.

4. The transition to democracy was a lot harder than we had reason to expect AND the Iraqis needed a lot more help defending it, then we had reason to hope. Those are historical facts and that should be considered in any analysis of the War.

5. Trump's comments on the war, are irrelevant. He was not even in politics at the time of the invasion.


----------



## surada (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Trump babbled that he had taken control of Syrian oil. He was still stupid.. Syria has very littlle oil ad what they have is crap.


----------



## struth (May 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The RR is a PART of the REpublican Base, not the whole of it, you seem confused on that point
> ...


with the full support of Xiden, the Clintons and the Dems.

But sadly, you continue to spread propaganda and lies. 

oh and Obama is a Marxist, and anti-Israel....as far as racist...I don't think that's true. but he certainly encouraged a lot of division, when he had a chance to unite...but frankly, that's not uncommon among leftist in general...it's what they do to gain and maintain power.    As far as anti-American....I mean, I don't think he wants to destroy America...he certainly wants a nation...he just doesn't like a free market, democratic republic, with  a limited Govt.  He's a leftist..


----------



## struth (May 16, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Gosh you aren't too bright....he was leaving troops to protect the fields...the fields that could have been taken and used by terrorist like Obama and Xiden's JV team, ISIS, to fund their war.


----------



## Circe (May 16, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


I can't take your poll because it doesn't say WHEN --- I supported it early on because it was definitely time to mess up some Muslims; but not because of WMD, that was an obvious lie.

But then Rumsfeld and Cheney (Bush's puppetmasters) could not extricate us --- I think they were trying on security colonialism since they did the same thing in Afghanistan: nationbuilding. Oh, yeah, THAT really worked! It works if you level most of the country first, e.g. German and Japan, but not if you don't and there isn't anything there but sand and caves anyway, few people and all of them herd goats.  I was very against the forever war in Iraq, and that useless idiot Bush by the next presidential election. In a real war, people go in, crush the enemy if they can, and get out. Duh. This was advertised as a real war, but wow, was it ever not.

Thirty full years we'd stayed out of Vietnam-type wars ---- but Bush broke that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> DIscussing the scale of the stakes is not relevant to discussing the fact that we had the national discussion and your side failed to make it's case.



Did the “let inspectors continue” side  have access to the same “final minutes of decision” intelligence that your “put a boot in their ass” side was privto?




Correll said:


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



Yes we did have a robust discussion but the claim made by your side to justify the invasion of Iraq turned outs to be completely untrue.

We could not learn fact that until after the invasion was launched to disarm Iraq of WMD when there was a wiser option in place.

A few more months of that peaceful process would have netted the same result without was. The Iraq regime was disarmed and verified by the 1441 indirections.

You say you won the debate prior to the start of an unnecessary $5 trillion, half a million lives war and that gives you the authority to obstruct further inquiry what based on what we can find out what happened in secret leading to the decision  made after March 6th with regard to intelligence supposedly on Bush’s desk at that pivotal moment in history’s

I want to have available to me snd the entire world to be able to se the sources and the content that led Bush to state this:

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.​

And I want to know why the Bush Administration did not follow up on this offer.
​Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Do you Correll agree with this statement?



Circe said:


> --- I supported it early on because it was definitely time to mess up some Muslims; but not because of WMD, that was an obvious lie.


----------



## Circe (May 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes we did have a robust discussion abd the claim made by your side to justify the invasion of Iraq turned outs to be completely untrue.


There was that aspect of it.

I still wouldn't have minded if they had taken that famous apparent 3 1/2 week victory as a good reason to leave --- however, I understand that Saddam hiding in his spider hole coming out periodically to the cheers of his subjects was NOT a good guy to leave in charge of Iraq if we'd just made war on him for the purpose of regime change, however idiotic that reason actually turned out to be (because no WMD, and no participation by Iraq in 9/11). They did have to wait another year to get Saddam.

But THENTHENTNHEN our forces should have left out, immediately, not a jeep left, no embassy, no nothing.  Just a lot of rubble they could think about while slowly rebuilding.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 16, 2021)

Pretty sure my exact response at the time was essentially, Saddam was ripe for the taking. He needed to be defeated. And 9/11 was a simple-easy reason to sell his removal to the American Public. At the same time, it gave us a good reason to build a base there.
Both of these have validity. With that, you can call Bush a liar, and pronounce the whole thing was a sham and revenge for his father.
But that is a simplistic view.
    Having said all of this... Bush II's handing of the 2nd Iraq war was atrocious. Absolutely terrible.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. Not at all. THere were plenty of valid reasons to oppose the war. Nothing I have ever said implied otherwise.


What about what I mentioned regarding  the motivation and attitude that led your war mongering side to dismiss valid reasons such as letting the inspections play out as 6 out of 10 Americans preferred?

For suggesting that I know I was called a SADDAM LOVING anti-American Islamist. 

We were not having a legitimate debate prior to the war versus rational intelligent people. and Bush went with them. Now you don’t want  to talk about it.

You are Poud that religious Christian  warmongers won the Day with your DUBYA and now we are obligated to just shut up about it.


----------



## Correll (May 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DIscussing the scale of the stakes is not relevant to discussing the fact that we had the national discussion and your side failed to make it's case.
> ...




1. We were wrong about the wmds. GOT IT. 

2. You don't get to see the raw intelligence. YOu never do. It doesn't matter. Your assumption that Bush was just being evil, is just you being a partisan hack.

3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience. No more fucking around. How many times do you need that explained to you.

4. And none of this reflects badly on Trump or the Bush/Trump supporters.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> That was a big heaping helping of crazy and anti-Christian bigotry and anti-white racism all mixed together.



Point to the words that you believe are anti- Christians


----------



## Correll (May 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Not at all. THere were plenty of valid reasons to oppose the war. Nothing I have ever said implied otherwise.
> ...




1. "the motivation and altitude"? WTF are you even talking about? We disagreed with your desire to give Saddam more time.

2. You do come across a being quite anti-American. I would actually peg you as a standard lefty atheist, not an islamist. 

3. We were having a fairly healthy debate on the issue, certainly better than we would do today, what with Big Tech and Cancel Culture. That it was not conducted according to formal debate rules, by Vulcans, is part of the Human Condition. 

4. I am not Proud of winning a debate in the past. My point was that rehashing it, is pointless. I was clear about that. Stop pretending to not get the point so you can talk shit.

5. YOur anti-Christian bigotry is noted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> 3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience.


 Saddam did not exhaust the public’s patience. What tells you that he did? A Toby Kieth song.?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. "the motivation and altitude"? WTF are you even talking about?


What I wrote is still there’s last I checked.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> . My point was that rehashing it, is pointless.





NotfooledbyW said:


> That Christian NATION oriented voter base holds the view as you do that former President Obama is an anti-American, anti-Israel, Marxists topped off with anti-white racism. There is no way that voter base would ever hear or consider his legitimate views regarding Iraq when there is a white evangelical patriotic Christian man in the White
> House telling them what he wants them to believe.



Do you consider the above by me to be anti-Christian? If so explain why?


----------



## Correll (May 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience.
> ...




Sure he did. You can't just keep fucking around indefinitely, especially when the country you are fucking around with, just lost 3k citizens to a surprise attack. 


Do you forget how angry America was?


----------



## Correll (May 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. "the motivation and altitude"? WTF are you even talking about?
> ...



You were vague. I do not wish to guess what you mean. I've played that game before with dishonest libs. Fuck that shit. 


Say what you mean, stop playing asshole games.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> Sure he did. You can't just keep fucking around indefinitely, especially when the country you are fucking around with, just lost 3k citizens to a surprise attack.
> 
> 
> Do you forget how angry America was?



I have cited for you dozens of polls that indicate a great deal of patience by 60 percent of Americans. That is my source as evidence that most Americans wanted War only with UN support stating they had the patience to let the inspections continue.

My argument is supported by professional polling: Saddam did not exhaust the public’s patience on a 60/40
Split

What is your source for saying the polling is not true or reliable and that most in the country did not want Bush to let the inspectors finish the job?


The push for war never linked SH to the surprize attack in September 2001.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> You were vague.


Never facts  - always  format  with you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion.



I was pointing out the point where you joined the discussion:

The lie I was referring in the above was specific . “Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March (2003) to start a war.” I was not referring to any intelligence gathering prior to the UN inspectors’ return to Iraq in December 2002. This is where Correll joined the discussion.​
Correll said: Could have been an honest mistake.​

Yes you  explained  that you supported the War in Iraq because you were angry about the  al Qaeda attacks that had nothing to do with SH in Iraq.

And you have presented distorted logic for  why we must not ever discuss what was being discussed when you joined this thread  because you, a cultural Christian true American  say it was an honest mistake - move on.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yep. At one point he supported the war, and at a later time he stated his belief that Bush lied to get us into that war.
> 
> I mean, wow. People change their opinions over time, especially in the light of new information.


Whatever led you to your false belief that Trump changed his original opinion to support or I believe in his case he did not object to the invasion into Iraq to disarm Iraq of WMD without allowing the inspectors finish the job. 

No one can say they supported it going in and then lie afterwards when it goes to shit that they were opposed.  Well they can if they are liars and they can get away with lying if their support for invasion was never expressed in the public record..

And you don’t appear to understand the simple concept that if one supported Bush’s threat assessment and justification for starting a “preemptive” war and find out that the President lied to you about its  necessity it is more than proper, It Is a moral imperative to lash out a President that lied the country into a 500,000 death and 5 trillion dollar war. That rebuke of a lying War President is not partisanship It is a moral civic duty.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> POINT ONE. Bush's/Trump's base, that you are so.... fixated on, does not equal with The Religious RIght. The RR is a PART of the REpublican Base, not the whole of it, you seem confused on that point


Of course the religious right is only a part of the entire Trump base. I have not made a claim that it is in any way There v whole Trump base.  Why did you make a point of it to say that I did?

Do you have a point that would counter what I wrote besides falsely accusing me of being  anti-Christian and making a false claim about what  I said.

try again will you?
​“I’m not confused at all. I understand full well that America’s white evangelical Christian nationalists back in March 2003 were not concerning themselves in the slightest way with whether or not Bush was telling the truth or lying, or any shady crap in between, about Saddam Hussein hiding WMD from UN inspectors.”​
From reading your comments regarding Bush, Iraq and WMD I believe this was  your position at the time;
.......back in March 2003 You did  not concerning yourself with whether or not Bush was telling the truth or lying, about Saddam Hussein hiding WMD from UN inspectors.”............. Is that true?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> That was a big heaping helping of crazy and anti-Christian bigotry



Is it Anti/Christian to criticize ‘The Land Letter’s authors and all of their Christian readers who took the message as gospel and never used the minds that God gave  them to scrutinize the secular reality that was taking place between the Letter and the Shock and AWE seen in the sky over Baghdad.

The LAND LETTER was an open letter sent to U.S. President George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002, outlining their support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq to remove the government, army and police from power. 

In that Christian letter it contained something that was not known to be the truth or verified by US intelligence at the time. This Therefore was a lie.

It reads in part:  Saddam Hussein ....”harbored terrorists from the al-Qaeda terrorist network that attacked our nation so viciously and violently on September 11, 2001,” 

Are those of us that paid attention to Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with UN inspections and Bush’s vow to exhaust all peaceful means to avoid was banned from criticizing Land Letter Christians because doing so  is anti Christian?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


And if I understand you correctly that is what convinced you in or around November 2002 to support the proposed ground invasion, occupation and nation building in Iraq. Is that right?



Correll said:


> 4. The transition to democracy was a lot harder than we had reason to expect AND the Iraqis needed a lot more help defending it, then we had reason to hope.



There were some out there at the time  that knew that the transition to democracy was going to be a lot harder than many of Iraq invasion supporters thought.

Can’t they read?

March to folly - The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq   Introduction by William D. Nordhaus, Yale University October 29, 2002​
The first concern is that the Bush administration has made no serious public estimate of the costs of the coming war. The populace and the Congress are unable to make informed judgments about the realistic costs and benefits of the upcoming conflict when none is given. Particularly worrisome is the promise of post-war occupation, reconstruction, and nation building in Iraq. If American taxpayers decline to pay the bills, this would leave a mountain of rubble and mobs of angry people in Iraq and the region.​
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/iraq.pdf​
Closely related is a second syndrome, frequently found in past conflicts, of entering war prepared militarily but not economically. The finances of the nation have deteriorated sharply since George W. Bush took office. The annual federal budget has deteriorated by $360 billion in 11⁄2 years, and, even with a short war, budget deficits are likely to mount in coming years. The Bush administration has not prepared the public for the cost or the financing of what might prove an expensive adventure. Perhaps, the administration is fearful that a candid discussion of wartime economics will give ammunition to skeptics of the war; perhaps, it frets that acknowledging the costs will endanger the large future tax cuts, which are the centerpiece of its domestic policy. Nonetheless, the price must be paid – by raising taxes, by cutting expenditures, or by forcing the​Federal Reserve do the job by raising interest rates, thereby curbing investment and especially housing. One way or another, Americans will pay for the war.​
March to folly - The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq​
Introduction by William D. Nordhaus, Yale University October 29, 2002​
Third, the predisposition of the United States under the Bush administration to undertake unilateral actions poses major risks. From a military point of view, attaching without a broad coalition of countries can make the conduct of the war more difficult and costly, and it may raise the hopes of the Iraqi leadership that others will come to their aid, thereby extending the conflict. From a political point of view, unilateral actions, particularly those taken without support from the Islamic world, risk inflaming moderates, emboldening radicals, and spawning terrorists in those countries. From a legal point of view, America’s insistence on the right to overturn foreign governments without the sanction of international law will undermine a wide variety of cooperative efforts on international finance, disarmament, the environment, non-proliferation, and anti-terrorism. From an economic point of view, unilateral actions imply that the costs will be largely borne by the United States.​
March to folly - The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq Introduction by William D. Nordhaus, Yale University October 29, 2002​
Fourth, strategists may be deluding themselves on the reaction of the Islamic world and the Iraqi people to American intervention. A key uncertainty concerns the loyalty of Iraqi troops and the willingness of the Iraqi military commanders to undertake an urban defense of Baghdad.​
Furthermore, even though no major Arab government is solidly behind the United States, the administration appears to be persuaded that Muslims are just waiting for the overthrow of Saddam to dance in the streets and that Americans will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators rather than infidels.​
Major blunders could unfold if both tactics prove more formidable and admiration for America less widespread than the American administration believes.​
Finally, one senses an obsession bordering on wooden-headedness in the Bush administration’s focus on Iraq in general and on regime change in particular. In contrast to the clear danger from terrorist activities, there is no imminent threat from Iraq. The war in Iraq threatens to claim the scarce resources and attention of the United States for many years, distracting the country from other troubling spots, like North Korea or the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The administration concentrates on Iraq, while slow growth, fiscal deficits, a crisis of corporate governance, and growing health-care problems threaten the economy at home. The domestic economy and the rest of the world will take a back seat as the U.S. deals with war and peace in Iraq.​


Notwithstanding all the warning signs, the administration marches ahead, heedless of the fiscal realities and undeterred by cautions from friends, allies, and foes. Soon, the United States will cry havoc and roll the dice of war.


----------



## Correll (May 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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





You did cite polls. And I pointed out that polling is not how we run this country. So, why do you keep circling back to it?

Oh, right, you've really got nothing to support your pretend outrage over a debate that ended nearly twenty years ago. 


The real crux of this is your desire to inflate the disagreement between Trump and Bush into some type of.... issue for the republican base. .


Which is just a reflection of your ideological rigidity.


----------



## surada (May 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



It was grossly unAmerican to support Bibi's desire to overthrow Saddam based on the most assinine lies.


----------



## Correll (May 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion.
> ...




1.  YOur opinion that Bush lied is irrelevant at this late date. 

2. And it could have been an honest mistake.

3. Al Qaeda attacks are NOT the reason I supported the invasion. 

4. My being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with my logic, or my support of the invasion. .You are just being a religious bigot.

5. This is all about your desire to use this to somehow spin up some negative shit to smear current day Trump supporters.


----------



## surada (May 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



I resigned the Republican party after 35 years because of Bush's stupidity. Didn't you KNOW this invasion was going to be an unmitigated disaster? Americans in the ME, oilmen, Arabs, Diplomats, Historians KNEW it was a huge, huge foreign policy blunder. Hasn't got a damned thing to do with Christianity or religion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. We were wrong about the wmds. GOT IT.


But of course you were never wrong personally and you of course continue to be absolutely right about WMD. You were right prior to the AUMF vote in October 2002 that was tied to disarming Iraq peacefully and *patiently* of WMD If possible.

You were right about WMD when the UNSC including the United States of America voted on an international stage that tied GW Bush to disarming Iraq peacefully and *patiently* If possible.

You were right in December 2002 when General al Saadi told reporters at the UN that Saadam Hussein was committed to disarming Iraq peacefully and *patiently* by offering to allow the CIA agents to enter IRAQ to join the search for WMD alive and in person because IRAQ did not have any.

You were right in JANUARY 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell on ABC This Week showed a high level of America’s *patience* when he stated affirmatively that Saadam Hussein was disarming Iraq peacefully by cooperating with UN inspectors. When asked by Stephanopolis if war in Iraq was inevitable, Sec Powell answered that war was not inevitable as long as the current level of cooperation continued. Fact. It really happened. 

You were right in February 2003 when Dr. Hans Blix reported that Saadam Hussein was committed with his proactive cooperation on process and substance with the 1441 inspectors and that disarming Iraq peacefully would take about 90 more days after March 17 2003.  The American people expressed they had patience for that. 

You were right because all that peaceful disarmament Bullshit was just a charade wasn’t it to give Bush and Blair to amass 250,000 ground troops and their wheels on the borders of Iraq.

 Being the genius that you are you figured out what the entire world and 6 of 10 Americans could not figure out. WMD didn’t matter at all.



Correll said:


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




I’ll bet you t thought it was hilarious when Dubya showed a slide show of himself in the Oval office, leaning to look under a piece of furniture. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere”Another slide showed him peering into another part of the office, "Nope, no weapons over there," he said, laughing. "Maybe under here," he said, as a third slide was shown.

How many soldiers were dead at that point after going into Iraq to hunt down the most lethal weapons ever devised under Dubya’s command.



NotfooledbyW said:


> The inspection’s meant nothing to the war supporters in 2003 and they mean absolutely nothing to @Correll today.
> 
> @Correll believes in a series of Iraq common myths and has a total lack of comprehension of what disarming Iraq peacefully means when the fact turned out to be there were no WMD to be found by the invading army.



My Thanks to you for this:


surada said:


> I resigned the Republican party after 35 years because of Bush's stupidity



Too bad others in your your former camp didn’t do the same. We likely would not be having our  heritage threatened by the Trump insurrection with all his supporters believing his BIG LIE.

They were trained in believing BIG LIES by Big DICK and Lil Dubby and have Republicans perfected it under the Donald. Its still the same four out of ten Americans seemingly that fall for white patriarchal  and authoritative father figures who will tell them anything to make them angry but daddy will keep them safe in that Republican bubble they live in.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You were vague.
> ...


Where’s the facts?




Correll said:


> A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit. It is strange with the benefit of hindsight that what he was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required.
> 
> 
> An odd choice for him. Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit.
> ...



When and his  did Saddam “poke the bear” after 1441.

You have no facts: 

I have facts :





www.foxnews.com › story › sa...
Saddam Ever xtends Invite to CIA | Fox News

Dec 22, 2002 — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to ... of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts




Correll said:


> Saddam had plenty of time. He choose to spend it fucking around.



I have facts and gave them to you a while 





NotfooledbyW said:


> www.foxnews.com › story › sa...
> Saddam Ever xtends Invite to CIA | Fox News
> 
> Dec 22, 2002 — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to ... of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts ...



You have no “Poking the Bear” facts.  You out have what Bush told you. It was all lies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> This nation has many structures in place to balance power. Polls are not one of them.


I have never once in my entire life said that professional polling services are a structure of the United states Government. So why are you stating  that is beyond me. However I will say our great government is one where we all give our consent to to be governed And that is what makes it work so well. With that consent from me I do expect a certain degree  of accountability and pure unadulterated honesty when those at the very top have to make a choice between war or peace in the world.

In March 2003 President George W. Bush had a very clear choice on that subject:

(A) Start a preemptive war and invasion into a Muslim country that had shown zero aggression against his neighbors or the United States of America since September 2001 even though that nation was being bombed extra heavily during the summer of 2002 by the United States and the United Kingdom. The purpose for preemptive war was is two separate the dictator of that nation from suspected possession of weapons of mass destruction and potential future development of same. The threat construct for justifying invasion is that the dictator could give weapons of mass destruction to global terrorists which could strike anywhere in the world at a future date.

The mid-March 2003 invasion dead was not set due to any kind of immediate threat. It was launched at a time where are military personnel would be able to beat the heat in the desert on the way to Baghdad. I believe (and this is personal opinion) right now that the reason the invasion was launched in March 2003 and not held off until the fall with a longer period of time before our troops would face the devastating summer heat is because It was a political choice. 2004 was an election year and President George W. Bush wanted to have the sure fire upcoming Iraq victory parade scheduled on the books for September when the voters would decide whether he gets a second term or not. Launching an  invasion in September 2003 may not have been soon enough to achieve the military victory in time for the election.

or

(B) allow the United Nations Security Council inspections under 1441  that had been in progress and working for 90 days prior to March 2003 to continue for another 90 days. That was the timeframe that the professional weapons inspectors had stated was a reasonable deadline to complete their work.

President George W. Bush of course chose option (A) to get the political campaign rolling.


In defense of President George W. Bush‘s choice for a war Correll has to give some kind of explanation for that date. That is because President George W. Bush proclaim to the American people that he was a man of peace and that he would exhaust all peaceful diplomatic means before choosing war. So the best answer Correll has been able to come up with for 17 years as to why Bush started a war in March 2003 was because Saddam Hussein was “poking the bear“ and “just fucking around“ and the majority of the American people had no patience for his defiant shit anymore .

However we can know for certain due to professional polling services that Correll is pulling an opinion out of his ass because he has zero to back up his claim that Americans had lost their patience  with the dictator Saddam Hussein.

We know from numerous polls consistently over the four month period leading up to the war that six out of 10 Americans wanted the United Nations involved in any decision regarding regime change in Iraq. They specifically also said they wanted their president George W. Bush to deliver on his promise to disarm Iraq peacefully and the way to do that was to allow the United Nations Security Council inspections to continue until completed.

Hence we got at Correll  making up a story that I had claimed that polling was part of the checks and balances system iwithin the Constitution of the United States of America.

It’s desperate times for the Iraq invasion warmonger side.


----------



## Correll (May 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. At one point he supported the war, and at a later time he stated his belief that Bush lied to get us into that war.
> ...




1. It is strongly implied by his later position that "bush lied".

2. If their past position  was never expressed in the public record, then how do you "know" that they are lying? Oh, right, you don't care if they are actually lying, you just want to smear Trump supporters. That is what this is about. Got it. You are a partisan troll. 

3.  You are assuming that Trump supporters agree with your opinion that Bush lied. That is you assuming that people who disagree with you on nearly everything, agree with you on one thing, so that that you have an excuse to talk shit about them.  lol!! You really are on a long trip for an excuse to be an asshole to people.


----------



## Correll (May 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > POINT ONE. Bush's/Trump's base, that you are so.... fixated on, does not equal with The Religious RIght. The RR is a PART of the REpublican Base, not the whole of it, you seem confused on that point
> ...




I believed that Saddam was hiding or had hid his wmds, until the nation was occupied and searched and no wmds were found.  

You are really beating a dead horse here, just to give yourself a justification to smear your enemies.


DO you really not have anything real that you can use against us? Wow. We must be even better people than I thought, if you have to go to these lengths to gin up some shit to whine at us about.


----------



## Correll (May 17, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




You are assuming I agree with you? WHy? Are you so stupid that you can't comprehend that other people disagree with you?


----------



## Correll (May 17, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




notfooled is the one that keeps bringing up religion, not me. If you have something to say about it, say it to him.


----------



## Correll (May 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. We were wrong about the wmds. GOT IT.
> ...




Do you understand that I disagree with you?


----------



## Correll (May 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Saddam had been poking the bear for years. Your denial of this history is you being a partisan hack.


----------



## Correll (May 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > This nation has many structures in place to balance power. Polls are not one of them.
> ...


Don't play retarded. I said it because you presented  that a poll showing support for waiting as though that should have trumped the judgement of the duly elected President and Commander in Chief.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> I said it because you presented that a poll showing support for waiting as though that should have trumped the judgement of the duly elected President and Commander in Chief.


I posted those polls in our discussion when  you made a claim that is not based upon facts or data of any kind. Its nothing more than that. You made something up so I smacked you down with reality.

The polls are reality. What you pull out if your ass is Trumpism reality. It is in no way connected to reality. 

according to the polling at the time addressing the very subject every one of those quotes is not 


Correll said:


> America, in the aftermath of 9-11, did not have much patience.



Six out of 10 Americans wanted inspectors to finish the job.



Correll said:


> You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.
> 
> My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.


You arec an idiot so don’t speak for me or the sixty percent of informed and sensible Americans that agreed with me and Biden - we had patience and if SH quit cooperating - We could take him out in the Fall. Its best to have rock solid evidence before killing half a million people at a cost of $5 Trillion

Y


Correll said:


> So, to be clear, you are arguing that the US, was going to be happy to wait for Saddam to... do something and not attack him for his repeatedly provocations?



No. When 200 inspectors were on the ground in IRAQ and a 200,000 man invading army was surrounding him ready to pounce if he farted too loudly It was absurd to expect him  “to do something” when he was 90 days away from being verified disarmed.



Correll said:


> To counter the historical record of America getting tired of his fucking around and just invading his ass and occupying his country, you...have...a... poll....?



Yes I have many polls that are much more a part of the historical record than what you pulled out of v your ass right there. What is “the historical record of America getting tired of his fucking around” anyway? Is There a FBTA  Federal Bureau of Turrd Americans that tracks everything Americans are tired of. I’ll best most Americans are tired of warmongers who live to start wars based on just being angry at someone deserving a boot up his c ass. And no  matter the cost. Don’t ask what it cost -just Pay



Correll said:


> 3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience. No more fucking around. How many times do you need that explained to you.


Saddam didnt exhaust my patience. I’m an American and more Americans agreed with me than  agreed with you, So who do you think you are speaking for me?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Saddam had been poking the bear for years. Your denial of this history is you being a partisan hack.



You are a liar now. I do not deny that history at all. . Take it back. It is a lie. That history of poking the bear is the exact reason why I supported Senator Clinton, Kerry And Biden and all Democrats when they voted in October 2002 to give President George W Bush the authorization to use military force against that motherf’ing piece of shit, bear poker if he did not allow United Nations Security Council inspections back in.  So don’t give me that shit. Don’t tell me what I think. It’s after 1441 was passed unanimously at the United Nations Security Council and the inspections resumed in December 2002 that SH did not poke the Bear.  Saddam  Hussein did not poke the bear after 1441 was passed.. If you have evidence that Saddam Hussein poked the bear after 1441 then post it. If you don’t quit lying about it


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Do you understand that I disagree with you?



Yes. You were right. You are a nation building genius.  WMD didn’t Matter. You didn’t
care about the WMD charade/ the smokescreen to get the Troops mobilized.  Inspectors blah blah bjah - you’ve cant disarm a nation that already was disarmed.  The invasion you supported was to kill 500,000 and cost $5 Trillion to establish a Democratic Republic like ours  in the center of the Muslim World.

Yeah it’s a disagreement all right. You
think you’re a genius and I know you’re an idiot


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> You did cite polls. And I pointed out that polling is not how we run this country.


Who was expected to pay for your PNAC “Project for a New American Century” $5 trillion neocon warmonger hobby in Iraq? Who was going to Pay Halliburton’s invoices when they took over Iraq? Polling is a way to find out if those who will end up paying your goddamned bills are in agreement before putting boots on the ground to start shooting.


Correll said:


> 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.


Did you have the cost assessment from the Bush Administrstion in front of you when you jumped in head first into the March of Folly; Did it hurt when you found out they forgot to fill the pool.

March to folly - The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq  Introduction by William D. Nordhaus, Yale University October 29, 2002.

The first concern is that the Bush administration has made no serious public estimate of the costs of the coming war. The populace and the Congress are unable to make informed judgments about the realistic costs and benefits of the upcoming conflict when none is given.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

The Rabbi said:


> Democrats were for the war when the public was behind it, and against it when the public got tired of it. Democrats are demagogue scum.



my reply to that lie five years ago;


NotfooledbyW said:


> When you make a false statement no matter how many times you make it, you must be refuted. Don't run away after stating something that is not true.
> 
> One month before the invasion all polling indicated that the majority did not support a US invasion without UN authorization. The majority of Americans  wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time. That is not a public 'for war' by any means. The percentage of Dems wanting Bush to give more time to inspections was close to 90%.


Same goes to you Correll


Correll said:


> 3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience. No more fucking around. How many times do you need that explained to you.


One month before the invasion all polling indicated that the majority did not support a US invasion without UN authorization. The majority of Americans wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time. That is not a public 'for war' by any means. The percentage of Dems wanting Bush to give more time to inspections was close to 90%. The truth is for the majority of Americans  Saddam had not exhausted America's patience at all.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I said it because you presented that a poll showing support for waiting as though that should have trumped the judgement of the duly elected President and Commander in Chief.
> ...




If the polls showed the opposite, would it change your opinion on the war, the decisions made, or Bush himself?


Rhetorical question. You don't give a damn about the polls and I agree. I don't give a damn about the polls either. 


You are just throwing shit at the wall, trying to spin up some negative shit to smear your modern day enemies, ie Trump supporters with. 


That you have to reach so far, though, reveals that you know on some level, that we are mostly in the right, and your side is mostly wrong.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam had been poking the bear for years. Your denial of this history is you being a partisan hack.
> ...




The response that was needed, was Saddam destroying his weapons and providing proof he had done so. 

Anything else was failing to meet with his obligations.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand that I disagree with you?
> ...




Do you understand that I disagree with you?


----------



## surada (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You did cite polls. And I pointed out that polling is not how we run this country.
> ...




May I butt in here? In a warzone there are no negotiations for contractual services.. Its always COST PLUS.  Halliburtonn didn't do anything wrong here.. In 1997 Saddam begged the US to lift sanctions on their oil sector for reserve mgmet and specified Halliburton.  It was a bargain.


----------



## surada (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Saddam couldn't let Iran know that Iraq was on the ropes.. All Bush's war accomplished was to put Iran in the catbird seat.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


These two statements are incompatible.


Correll said:


> 4. My being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with my logic, or my support of the invasion.


One of the many positive outcomes of your participation in a thread that you complain about and depict quite often to be irrelevant is that you inadvertently bring fresh ideas to the sociological profession as to how and why so many Americans allowed themselves to be lied into supporting a war of choice; lied into supporting a first strike war of preemptive self/defense; lied into supporting a policy of what the Bush Administration has chosen to call “anticipatory self-defense.

So don’t run away because we need a cultural Christian’s perspective and honest opinion and input to find the answer to why so many Americans allowed themselves to be lied into supporting a war of choice.

As a cultural Christian and eventual Trump supporter you said your support pre-invasion and post-invasion  TrumpO o use massive amounts of US military force in order to preemptively remove ..... ( not wait for an attack beyond March 17 2003 ) ..... the Sunni regime in Baghdad in order to give the Shia majority that has a religious connection to Iran  a chance to establish a functional free and fair Democracy that would provide an ideological challenge to Islamic extremists.

But then you say that being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with your support of preemptive war to force regime change in a nation  comprised mostly of Muslims.

Can you explain in a mature and thoughtful way why you think your religion had nothing to do with your decision making process that led you to support the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

surada said:


> May I butt in here? In a warzone there are no negotiations for contractual services.. Its always COST PLUS. Halliburtonn didn't do anything wrong here..


Yes. I’m not addressing Halliburton’s role or how they get paid. I’m asking Correll if he considered There v potential cost to the tax payers of doing regime change in Iraq and set the Shia up to run a democracy.


----------



## surada (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



These self righteous dickeads have never cared about Arab Christians.. They didn't care about the 50 churches in Bagdad or the Palestinian Christians. The Evangelicals are the worst. Even Dubya showed his colors  when he told Chirac he was fighting God and Magog. 

And, they don't know anything about the ME or the oil business.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> The response that was needed, was Saddam destroying his weapons and providing proof he had done so.


He tried immediately: 

Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.


----------



## surada (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > May I butt in here? In a warzone there are no negotiations for contractual services.. Its always COST PLUS. Halliburtonn didn't do anything wrong here..
> ...



@Correl

Our notions of democracy.. our heritage if you will comes out of  ancient Greek and Roman experience . The mosque is the center of civic participation in the Muslim world. They do have a consultative government ..  In Arabia the King has to have the approval of the tribal leaders, the clergy, the merchant class , the royal family and the technocrats.. 

Saddam was a secular leader so he lacked that.

Forcing democracy on them is arrogant and dumb as hell. Leave them alone and let them come to it naturally.

It took us a while to become a "democracy".


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You did cite polls. And I pointed out that polling is not how we run this country.
> ...




1. The same people that pay for EVERY government program that every lobby pushes for. That is a weird question.

2. Polling is NOT how we decide who pays what bills. You might want to read up on how representative democracy works.

3. I did not have those numbers, but I, of course considered the cost of the war. That is a weird question.  


What is your point to this post? You trying to pretend the fact that tax payers pay for wars is somehow... 


what? Are you trying to pretend that...


Seriously wtf are you even talking about?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

surada said:


> It took us a while to become a "democracy".


And I don’t think our Civil War was a prime example of a functioning democracy.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats were for the war when the public was behind it, and against it when the public got tired of it. Democrats are demagogue scum.
> ...




This country is not run by nor defined by polls. That you found some polls that you think support your position mean nothing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. Polling is NOT how we decide who pays what bills. You might want to read up on how representative democracy works.


You might want to stop lying about what I said. It’s very unchristian like


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> This country is not run by nor defined by polls.


I have never suggested implied or directly stated that our country is run by Polls. In fact the $5 trillion Iraq mistake was a result of the country being run by idiots who did not listen to polls.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




That might explain his odd choices, that from here, looked like a man hiding wmds.


----------



## surada (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > It took us a while to become a "democracy".
> ...



Exactly .. it took us over a thousand years to get there... and even now I wonder if we're there yet. The Trumpies are trying so hard to disenfranchise American voters and flinging lies constantly.


----------



## surada (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Don't you remember when the assholes claimed Saddam was trucking his WMDs back and forth between Sudan and Syria?

Make no mistake Bush/Cheney wanted war at any cost. Why? Not because of oil. The oil business hates a war zone. Read Clean Break Strategy. We did it because  that's what Israel wanted.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Do you understand that I, and people like me, disagree with you?


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The response that was needed, was Saddam destroying his weapons and providing proof he had done so.
> ...




And right there you are. Saddam was willing to let the send agents to place THEY suspected of weapons developments. 


What SADDAM needed to do, was send them to where he knew there was weapon development or weapons. That was what was required of him.


----------



## surada (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Iraq was CRIPPLED by two decades of war and sanctions before Bush invaded.. This was NEVER about WMDs and EVERYBODY in the ME knew that.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




People were confused by the inability to find the wmds. Trucking them back and forth was a possible reason for it. 


DO you forget that? 

I never said it was oil. Save that for someone that says OIL.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Polling is NOT how we decide who pays what bills. You might want to read up on how representative democracy works.
> ...




You  might not have SAID it, but you are acting like it.  So stop with the bullshit.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




What does that have to do with anything I said?  Are you just a spam bot?


----------



## surada (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Even Papa Bush opposed Dubya's invasion of Iraq.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


What 


surada said:


> Even Papa Bush opposed Dubya's invasion of Iraq.




What does that have to do with anything in my post that you responded to?

Are you just here to spout random shit?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> If the polls showed the opposite, would it change your opinion on the war, the decisions made, or Bush himself?



If the polls showed the opposite I could not be here telling you that you are lying when you keep saying that Americans were out of patience and opposed to giving the UN inspectors more time to verify Iraq’s disarmament peacefully with no need for war as Bush said he would do. Exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to war.

Thats it. Thats all the professional serious polling in the run up to the war means to me. If they were flipped I would honestly say based on the facts that you were correct to say that the majority of Americans wanted Bush to stop the inspections so he can start a preemptive war against Iraq while Saddam was cooperating proactively with the inspectors.

So its time you admit that the polls are not flipped and admit that the majority of Americans were not so angry that they wanted Bush to kick UN Weapons inspectors out of Iraq and initiate the Bush Doctrine in Iraq.

Can you do that??


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > If the polls showed the opposite, would it change your opinion on the war, the decisions made, or Bush himself?
> ...




So, the polls don't mean much to you. THey mean even less to me. 


Ask me why?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> you are acting like it.


What I say is what I mean. I cannot control your uncontrollable imagination.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, the polls don't mean much to you.


You are a liar. They mean enough to you to ask what I thought if that one in particular was flipped.

Polls professionally done mean what they mean. If you have a credible source that confirms the polls in question are flipped please provide. Otherwise you are lying when you say that the majority of Americans did not want President George W. Bush to allow the inspections to continue in order to peacefully verify that Iraq was disarmed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> 3. I did not have those numbers, but I, of course considered the cost of the war.


What numbers did you have?


Correll said:


> What SADDAM needed to do, was send them to where he knew there was weapon development or weapons.


Poking  the BEAR!!!TFF for a reply right now!!!!  Get back to you later.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> That might explain his odd choices, that from here, looked like a man hiding wmds.


Yes, That explains Saddam Hussein's behavior prior to 1441.  After 1441 whatever the UNSC reported was the status of WMD inside Iraq.  The inspectors found none and by February 2003 the Iraq regime was cooperating proactively with the inspectors to prove they did not have any WMD to hide. 1441 was a significant event in the history of dealing with Iraq's WMD. It was pivotal because the threat of regime change backed up with 250,000 troops closing in on Iraq.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, the polls don't mean much to you.
> ...




THey mean enough that I asked you a question about it? WOW. 

Just WOW. 

Hint: That means shit. 


My point stands. The polls mean shit to either one of us. Neither one of us would change our position based on any polls.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 3. I did not have those numbers, but I, of course considered the cost of the war.
> ...




1. I had no hard numbers. I just assumed that it would be terribly expensive in money and lives. 

2. Your idiocy is dismissed. My point stands. Saddam was fucking around, and wasted all his time.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That might explain his odd choices, that from here, looked like a man hiding wmds.
> ...




They needed to provide evidence that the wmds had been destroyed. Anything less was not meeting their obligations. 


You can't prove a negative. Unless the inspectors were able to look at EVERY inch of the  country, IN REAL TIME, the possibility that the wmds, were just well hidden, would have remained.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Unless the inspectors were able to look at EVERY inch of the country, IN REAL TIME, the possibility that the wmds, were just well hidden, would have remained.


That is not what the inspectors said. They said with the  proactive cooperation on substance received in February the process of verifying Iraq in compliance with its disarmament obligations would be completed within a few months. Just the facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

The polls mean shit to either one of us. Neither one of us would change our position based on any polls.

Why did you ask if the polls were flipped? The mean something to you because they mean exactly what they mean. Most Americans 60% did not share your angry lust for preemptive war in Cheney and Bush's March to folly when there was no immediate threat whatsoever for starting it on March 17, 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> You can't prove a negative.


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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Saddam was fucking around, and wasted all his time.



Not after 1441. In December he offered to let the CIA come in.  That is not fucking around. He opened his country to the CIA.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

I just assumed that it would be terribly expensive in money and lives.

Did you also assume that the six of ten Americans who wanted inspections to continue would support your March to Folly when they found out the stated mission by Bush to find WMD was a lie?


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Unless the inspectors were able to look at EVERY inch of the country, IN REAL TIME, the possibility that the wmds, were just well hidden, would have remained.
> ...




You can't prove a negative. Saying that they could not find wmds, does not demonstrate that there were no wmds. Not when you had an entire national government that could be hiding them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, the polls don't mean much to you.


Nothing I wrote would allow you to reach that conclusion. It is therefore a lie.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You can't prove a negative.
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam was fucking around, and wasted all his time.
> ...




Too little, too late. He needed to provide teh wmds, or evidence he had destroyed them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Too little, too late. He needed to provide the wmds, or evidence he had destroyed them.



Says Who? Why is December too late? The 1441 inspections were just getting started. Why is that "Too Little" There would be no better way than to have our CIA weapons analysts working on the ground in Iraq instead of at the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon speculating on what was there.



NotfooledbyW said:


> He tried immediately:
> 
> Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.




.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> People were confused by the inability to find the wmds. Trucking them back and forth was a possible reason for it.




The UN inspectors were not confused.  What people are you talking about?   Can you provide factual backup for what you claim so I can check it out?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


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


That is precisely what the Iraqis and the inspectors were doing since late February 2002 with proactive cooperation from the Iraqi side.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Too little, too late.


Is immediate cooperation on process including offering to let the CIA in and proactive cooperation by working with the inspectors to resolve longstanding issues regarding unilateral unrecorded destruction of materials- poking the Bear?


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Too little, too late. He needed to provide the wmds, or evidence he had destroyed them.
> ...



He had had years to provide the information, that should have taken, at most,  months to provide.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > People were confused by the inability to find the wmds. Trucking them back and forth was a possible reason for it.
> ...




THe people you were talking about, who were speculating that the wmds were being trucked back adn forth. 


Are you high right now? You seem to have trouble following your own logic? Or are you just tossing shit at a wall and painting yourself into a corner with it?


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




They turned over the wmds? That is the first I have heard of that. Please continue.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Too little, too late.
> ...




Yes, very much so. The wmds or the proof of their destruction should have been turned over years earlier.


----------



## surada (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Don't you get it yet? There were no WMDs.. Bush/Cheny were LYING.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> The wmds or the proof of their destruction should have been turned over years earlier.



That is not what you were asked. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Is immediate cooperation on process including offering to let the CIA in and proactive cooperation by working with the inspectors to resolve longstanding issues regarding unilateral unrecorded destruction of materials- poking the Bear?





Correll said:


> Yes, very much so.



Full proactive cooperation with 1441 us poking the Bear connected your mind?

If yes is your serious answer, you are alone in the world on that one.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> What You They turned over the wmds? That is the first I have heard of that. Please continue.



Yes they turned over and destroyed some prescribe items in front of the 1441 inspectors. But I was referring to  the second issue *you* mentioned.     Here’s what *you* wrote:


Correll said:


> or provide the evidence that they were destroyed.



in reference to “provide the evidence that they were destroyed.” This was my response; 



NotfooledbyW said:


> That is precisely what the Iraqis and the inspectors were doing since late February 2002 with proactive cooperation from the Iraqi side.



Its a fact. I post only facts that can be backed up;

Addressing a ministerial-level meeting of the Council, Mr. Blix cited in particular Baghdad's move to* begin UN-supervised destruction *of the Al Samoud 2 missiles, which had been declared by Iraq last year, but were later found to be outside the permissible range by UN experts.​
*"The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament -* indeed the first since the middle of the 1990's," Mr. Blix said. "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."​
But at the same time Mr. Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said that the recent *accelerations on of initiatives from Iraq, *while welcome, should be judged by how many questions marks they had actually succeeded in straightening out. He also noted that Baghdad should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes, and expressed hope that *the appointment of a government commission would help to produce results.*​
Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain​
Turning to biological and chemical weapons, Mr. Blix said *there was a significant Iraqi effort under way to clarify *a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of those arms, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. As part of that effort, *a disposal site was being now re-excavated, unearthing bombs and fragments, which could allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site.*​


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




That is your opinion. IN the real world, the Iraqis were required to turn over the wmds or proof that they were destroyed. They did not do so, so war.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The wmds or the proof of their destruction should have been turned over years earlier.
> ...




That was my answer to your question.  Deal with it.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What You They turned over the wmds? That is the first I have heard of that. Please continue.
> ...




TWO weapons? Not enough to be convincing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> TWO weapons? Not enough to be convincing.


He didn’t have anything else to destroy. Letting the inspections continue would have revealed that truth. There was no reason to invade Iraq to learn that truth. What Dubya did as Obama says was very dumb.  And since 60% of Americans agreed with Obama you tried to say they agreed with you but that was not true, so you b tried claim that SH had to be removed because he was poking the Bear after 1441 was passed in NOVEMBER 2002. Abd that is a bold faced lie.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > TWO weapons? Not enough to be convincing.
> ...




What was very dumb was for Saddam to destroy his wmds, without documenting it so that he could never satisfy his obligation. 


You ignore that those, because it does not help your reach your goal, which is to smear your enemies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> That was my answer to your question.


That was a reply to a post. Ut was not an answer to the question. I know when you are stuck
In the mud if your lies. Its when pulling that shit is all you have left to do.

You are the missing link in the evolution of about a third of Americans who went from being suckered from Dubya’s big lie to Trump’s big lie pretty much holding your brain activity on pause through the Obama Biden Years.


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That was my answer to your question.
> ...





NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That was my answer to your question.
> ...





Your problem is that you are so hateful, that you cannot think clearly about people you hate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> What was very dumb was for Saddam to destroy his wmds, without documenting it so that he could never satisfy his obligation.


What’s dumber is you not knowing that Bush knew all that when he agreed to 1441 which the entire world understood that it gave SH a final opportunity to comply through a peaceful inspection process tam that did happen. Its a fact. 

It was what SH did after 1441 that really mattered except to bloodthirsty warmongering neocons and white Republican evangelical Christian nationalists in Bush’s base that wanted what was similar to you - not caring at all the goings on under international law through the UN Security Council..


----------



## Correll (May 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What was very dumb was for Saddam to destroy his wmds, without documenting it so that he could never satisfy his obligation.
> ...




It does not matter. Saddam was doomed when 9-11 happened and America's tolerance for assholes fucking with us, dropped below the threshold he had already passed, and he did not have the documentation to show that he destroyed his wmds. 


That you want to use that to attack AMERICA, or some Americans, is just your anti-Americanism showing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> It does not matter. Saddam was doomed when 9-11 happened and America's tolerance for assholes fucking with us, dropped below the threshold he had already passed, and he did not have the documentation to show that he destroyed his wmds.



Is it your contention and argument here that the the invasion of Iraq was decided and was unstoppable as of September 12 2001?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 18, 2021)

America was going broke when you supported whole hog invading Iraq to spend billions to create a functional Democracy in Muslim world.


Correll said:


> Yes. We are broke and cannot afford more foreign adventures.



But when I bring up cost as a concern I had while Dubya was deciding to kick inspectors out in order to start a major ground War -  it is whining and irrelevant.



Correll said:


> Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.


Why is that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> The inspectors never claimed to be proving a negative.


That was the reason for UNMOVIC’s  existence - verifying the existence or nonexistence of prescribed weapons in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions.




Correll said:


> Trump won the election fair and square. He will govern as he sees fit, to the limits of his ability and his power.








Correll said:


> And yet, he is the first President in a long time who is going to be crafting policy based on benefiting Middle America, not Ideology or the 1%.



Did you give up your PNAC Membership when the Donald came into your life?



Correll said:


> "Warmongering liars"? Trump? What the fuck does Trump have to do with a war that was years before he was relevant?



There is plenty of relevance here. In 2003 you were all in on regime change and nation building ( without a threat to our national security) through massive ground invasion and sending billions and other resources that belonged to the American middle class to the Middle East in what was called at the time the Project for a New American Century.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> Putin and Trump have common ground. They don't want needless conflict between their nations.
> 
> He might very well relish our misfortunes given his youth in the KGB,



Putin told Dubya not to take out Saddam because the peaceful process of inspections was working.

Dubya refused to listen. Instead he listened to uninformed Warmongers such as yourself.



Correll said:


> "Warmongering liars"? Trump? What the fuck does Trump have to do with a war that was years before he was relevant?



Apparently, despite the polls that said otherwise, W He was convinced that Americans like you were so angry at Saddam Hussein he figured it would be politically expedient to take him out. It would please you. 

That decision awarded America all the misfortunes you mentioned that followed it. That is why it’s so relevant in any discussion today and specifically discussions involving Donald J Trump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> I said it because you presented that a poll showing support for waiting as though that should have trumped the judgement of the duly elected President and Commander in Chief.



The polls should not have trumped the judgment of the commander-in-chief.  However, the truth and the facts and the reality on the ground on March 10 2003 should have.

About 12 years later with the ascension of Donald J Trump you came to agree that the truth,  the facts and the reality of peaceful inspections should have trumpW‘s judgment In March 2003.



Correll said:


> Trump is going to avoid needless conflict.



Like the needless conflict that you went head over heels cheerleading for with Cheney Rumsfield and the capital PNAC nation-building warmongers

Trump thinks you are an idiot for your wanton ignorant warmongering in 2003 but he took your votes in both rigged elections anyway. He still needed idiots to win in 2016 and he didn’t have enough in 2020. So now we have the Trump insurrection


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> It does not matter. Saddam was doomed when 9-11 happened and America's tolerance for assholes fucking with us, dropped below the threshold he had already passed, and he did not have the documentation to show that he destroyed his wmds.
> 
> 
> That you want to use that to attack AMERICA, or some Americans, is just your anti-Americanism showing.



If being against needless conflict and wars is anti-American then Trump is anti-American according to this version of you. Is that Jeckyl Correll or Hyde Correll? Who knows?



Correll said:


> Trump is going to avoid needless conflict.


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter. Saddam was doomed when 9-11 happened and America's tolerance for assholes fucking with us, dropped below the threshold he had already passed, and he did not have the documentation to show that he destroyed his wmds.
> ...




I said what I said. Restating it, and changing it in the process, is your brain trying to defend your world view from ideas that threaten it. 


Because they are right and you know that your world view is wrong.


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> America was going broke when you supported whole hog invading Iraq to spend billions to create a functional Democracy in Muslim world.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> ...




Because we have been in a unsustainable financial situation for quite a while now. Picking ONE specific budget stressor and pretending to care about it, when we have been on the road to ruin for decades, without a peep from you, is bullshit.


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "Warmongering liars"? Trump? What the fuck does Trump have to do with a war that was years before he was relevant?
> ...




By "you all" I take it you are referring to the overlapping Bush/Trump base?


Do you even realize that you are unable to clearly state your point?  You are confused and distracted from it, by your need to just throw negative sounding shit at the wall, to smear your enemies.


Focus on your point. I think I've stated it for you once or twice, but you can't seem to say it yourself, nor stay on topic for more than a second or two.


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Putin and Trump have common ground. They don't want needless conflict between their nations.
> ...




To a point about Putin and Trump you come back with a claim about Bush not listening to PUtin? Are you aware that they are two different people? Do you realize how stupid you look when you talk like a retarded baby? What the fuck are you even trying to say?


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "Warmongering liars"? Trump? What the fuck does Trump have to do with a war that was years before he was relevant?
> ...



That makes no sense. Your assumptions about Bush was thinking, is you being a partisan hack. Your inability to distinguish between Bush and Trump is you being blinded by your partisan zealotry.


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I said it because you presented that a poll showing support for waiting as though that should have trumped the judgement of the duly elected President and Commander in Chief.
> ...




I voted for Trump because of his polices on trade and immigration and DESPITE his, imo, amateurish views on the Iraqi Invasion.  That way you make these pathetically self serving assumptions about people you hate, and then act like an asshole to people because of your invented shit, is you being a fucking asshole.

Your assumptions about what Trump thinks, is just you projecting your asshole-ness onto other people. 


That you have to go to such lengths to justify your  being an asshole, is your brain realizing that the stated reasons that most libs use to be assholes, are really, really complete bullshit.


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter. Saddam was doomed when 9-11 happened and America's tolerance for assholes fucking with us, dropped below the threshold he had already passed, and he did not have the documentation to show that he destroyed his wmds.
> ...




I clearly stated why I was calling you an anti-American.  It was NOT what you said. That was you pretending to be retarded, so that you can have a excuse to say stupid shit, and then attack me based on shit you just made up.


Question: Based on your standards, your silly standards, do you believe that Abe Lincoln "lied us into war"?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> And right there you are. Saddam was willing to let the send agents to place THEY suspected of weapons developments.


Yes that was in December 2002.  “THEY” of course was the CIA. You used the words “suspected” as in the CIA did not have solid evidence before the invasion of actual possession of WMD? Is it your understanding then that Bush was told by the Intelligence agencies that they did not have evidence only suspicion. Where did Bush get this then? LEAVES NO DOUBT.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.​
I don’t see how being wrong on SH possessing Hidden WMD In March 2003  can be pinned on the Intelligence Service. Why do you see it that way?





Correll said:


> I said what I said.


Thats true but if you cant confirm that I understood what you correctly, then I have to ask what you meant when you said SH was doomed because of 9/11/01 which he had nothing to do with.  What do you mean SH was doomed?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> By "you all" I take it you are referring to the overlapping Bush/Trump base?


 learn to read.

I said “ In 2003 you were all in on regime change and nation building” 

How did you miss “were” in between “You” and “All”?

I was referring to you and you being a cheerleader  for ‘nation building’ by bombing and shooting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> attack me based on shit you just made up.


Let’s stick to facts. what did I make up so I can respond.


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And right there you are. Saddam was willing to let the send agents to place THEY suspected of weapons developments.
> ...



OR, more obviously, I was referring to the SPECIFIC SITES BEING SUSPECTED.


Christ. CAN YOU BE ANY MORE OBVIOUS IN YOUR PRETENSE OF BEING RETARDED TO DODGE A FUCKING POINT?


loser.


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > By "you all" I take it you are referring to the overlapping Bush/Trump base?
> ...




I don't know what you mean by "ALL IN", in this context. I was hopeful that it would work. I could think of no other viable strategy to work towards any type of victory. 


What is your point, in this shocking conclusion, that I supported the policy, like I said I did, when I first posted in this thread, days and days ago?


----------



## Correll (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > attack me based on shit you just made up.
> ...




I clearly stated what you made up, and you cut it. So, you want to know? Go back and fucking read it.


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 19, 2021)

surada said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about. Operation Mass Appeal was on a mission to create a need to attack Iraq.


wHAT ISTHERE LEFT TO SAY -- -


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 19, 2021)

The Banker said:


> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.


WE WILL ALWAys be frtiends so longas you can read my words- 
& feel a feeling -


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> .,.,,..,,.,.,.,.,..That is why it’s so relevant in any discussion today and specifically discussions involving Donald J Trump.



tRUMP IS A BOOM.
Boomb. 
Stay silent !!!!!!!!!!!!!
keep your children fed as best you can
The Lord Is With You
-


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> He had had years to provide the information, that should have taken, at most, months to provide.


1441 gave SH a final opportunity to comply. Have you heard of it. Who has more authority on disarming Iraq sand the time it would take. (a)You or (b) the United Nations Security Council?

Just answer (A) or (B)


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Just answer (A) or (B)


At least we see each other eye to eye-(;-


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 19, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> wHAT ISTHERE LEFT TO SAY -- -


,.,..,.,.,0or.,.,.,.,,., post -


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 19, 2021)

*Religion, Morality and Philosophy is what Jesus was telling whomever would listen

Religion, Morality and Philosophy 
RMP Is best woven together in the following biblical verses*

(Mal 3:5 KJV) _And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts._

(Jer 14:8 KJV) _O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night?_

(Ezek 14:7 KJV) _For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to inquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:_

(Deu 1:16 KJV) _And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him._

(Deu 10:19 KJV) _ Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt._

(Deu 24:19 KJV) _When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands._

(Deu 24:20 KJV) _When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._

(Deu 24:21 KJV) _When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow_

(Jer 7:6 KJV) _If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:_

(Jer 22:3 KJV) _Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place._

(Ezek 22:7 KJV) _In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow._

(Zec 7:10 KJV) _And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart._

(Exo 22:21 KJV) _Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt._

(Exo 23:9 KJV) _Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt._

(Lev 19:34 KJV) _But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God._

(Lev 25:35 KJV) _And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee._

This is the one I like the most----

(Deu 10:19 KJV) _Love ye therefore the stranger: *for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.*_

The above is what Jesus was telling whoever would listen in the streets when the local Rabi’s told the occupying Romans that if they stopped Jesus’ talk about the Jewish bible the current public unrest would be end.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 19, 2021)

What saY YOU- 
-


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 19, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Religion, Morality and Philosophy is what Jesus was telling whomever would listen*


too -  (_;0;-


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because we have been in a unsustainable financial situation for quite a while now.



Actually, Clinton left Bush an annual budget surplus just a couple years before you and all those white evangelical Christian nationalists cheered Bush on to try to shock and awe Iraq into a democracy.


----------



## Correll (May 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He had had years to provide the information, that should have taken, at most, months to provide.
> ...




Me, as an American citizen.


----------



## Correll (May 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Because we have been in a unsustainable financial situation for quite a while now.
> ...




You asked me for why I did not care about something. The fact that you disagree with my opinion of that, does not change the fact that that is my motive. 


What is relevant here, is, your question was answered. And now we see that you did not care about it. It was not a serious question, just an attack in the form of a pretend question.

We can see that from your reaction. Your response in no way links BACK to what we were discussing, and instead jumps to a completely new topic, which is still just you attacking me on partisan and religious and racial and personal grounds. 


You are a partisan and bigoted and racist zealot.


----------



## surada (May 20, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Religion, Morality and Philosophy is what Jesus was telling whomever would listen
> 
> Religion, Morality and Philosophy
> RMP Is best woven together in the following biblical verses*
> ...



Deuteronomy is the second law and it refers to the Exodus myth.. Probably written about 800 years after Moses. Jeremiah and Ezekiel  were not referencing Jesus.. Look at the prophets, when they lived, who they were addressing.. and read those verses in context.

The unrest didn't stop with Jesus crucifixion.


----------



## gtopa1 (May 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > I opposed the war.
> ...


Mao? Pol Pot?? Genghis Khan??? The Mayans? The Egyptians?????n lmao

You really are stupid!!!

Greg


----------



## surada (May 20, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Iraq was already crippled before we invaded.. All we accomplished was strengthening Iran... as predicted.


----------



## struth (May 20, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Oh sure, it was run like a third world country...people massively oppressed, torture, murders etc....but the Dictator in charge had weapons, deadly weapons, was actively provoking the world and threatening it....the fact their economy was weak doesn't mean the man in charge can't kill.

Look at NK...weak, but potentially deadly, look at the USSR....it was weak but potentially deadly....

etc.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> Me, as an American citizen.


Are you special? Most Americans are represented at the United Nations through the President and his Ambassador to the UN. It would be chaos if every citizen Could vote on everything.  if it worked that way, Americans would have chosen  to let 1441 inspections continue. NO INVASION.

I don’t recall seeing you at the Senate Hearing or are you John Negroponte.

Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meets to hear testimony from Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, and  the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte. Both are principal actors in the formulation and implementation of U.S. policy toward Iraq, and they will provide comments on U.S. reaction to the 60-day progress report  on Iraq's compliance with the United Nations Security Council  Resolution 1441.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 20, 2021)

struth said:


> ..but the Dictator in charge had weapons, deadly weapons, was actively provoking the world and threatening it...


Not after 1441. SH was not provoking the world. Correll is lying about SH “poking the Bear” after 1441. And the Dictatorship did not have WMD as suspected before 1441, during 1441, or after 1441.

You supported the war announced and started on March 17 2003 which forced peaceful inspections to end. Biden, Both Clintons, Kerry, Schumer and Pelosi opposed that date for starting a war. They all called for continued inspections...... as did six out of ten Americans at the time. You and Correll  are War Mongers exactly like Dick Cheney and Colin Powell who supported ending inspections. Its the truth supported by the facts following 1441.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> What is relevant here, is, your question was answered.



Actually my question provoked your initial response which contained an error. I informed you of your error and as is mostly the case when dealing with you, you cut off the discussion, refusing to discuss your error as if your word is infallible. Must be what cultural Christians in the Trump cult do.


----------



## struth (May 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > ..but the Dictator in charge had weapons, deadly weapons, was actively provoking the world and threatening it...
> ...


Sure he was...did you not read the report from the Inspectors?  Or read their testimony?  Geez man...we've been through this over and over.

Just stop already...we get that you will go to great lengths to defend your murderous old boss...but come on MAN


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 20, 2021)

struth said:


> Sure he was


Immediately following passage of 1441 SH offered to allow the CIA to enter Iraq in order to search directly for suspected weapons and or WMD development sites.


That in no way to any honest and thinking mind can be construed as a provocation to the world. You are a lying idiot when you say that it was. And your lie is made even more repulsive to civilized human beings because the purpose of that lie is only to defend the killing of 500,000 human beings at a cost of $5 trillion. Or a $7 trillion mistake  if you believe Donald J Trump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 20, 2021)

struth said:


> we've been through this over and over.


Just learned that Q anon recount in Arizona has discovered the presence of cheese dust on one of the ballots. I would be not be surprised if you made a claim that the cheese dust proves once and for all that Trump was elected president in 2020.

The idea that you can repeat it as a fact and then say we’ve been over and over and over this 1 billion times does not make it a fact. You are in a cult. You are not in a very good relationship with reality at the moment.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 20, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> (Deu 10:19 KJV) _Love ye therefore the stranger: *for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.*_


This is how @Corell expresses Christian love towards strangers specifically in anger at Muslim strangers. 

59 60 61 62, then we stopped  keeping a body count

Toby Kieth: 'Cos we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.

Correll #661    America had been terribly attacked and was not afraid in a mood to put up with any shit.

...number 058 of 500,000 got the American boot up the ass.  Salma Amin 50 Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

Because  Correll sez:      #669
Arabs suck at democracy.

.... 059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

.... 060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

(The Angry American) Toby Kieth &
struth May 2, 2021 #296  
Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents.

Toby Keith: Hey, Uncle Sam put your name(s) at the top of his list,

.....061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

The Pentagon reported on 7 April that .A B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> To a point about Putin and Trump you come back with a claim about Bush not listening to PUtin?


The point was about Bush not listening to Putin. It would’ve saved the United States of America $5 trillion and Would not have killed 500,000 people in America‘s name.


----------



## the other mike (May 20, 2021)

18 losers voted for it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> OR, more obviously, I was referring to the SPECIFIC SITES BEING SUSPECTED.



whatever, suspected is suspected  - the CIA NEVER had what W told the public because no WMD was found by the invaders. W said “leaves no doubt”   ...

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

You called for killing 500,000 human beings on Bush’s lie.

Just out of curiosity what do you think of Trump still lying today that he won the election. Big lies like Trump’s and W’s Don’t seem to bother a cultural Christian such as yourself. Why is that?


----------



## Correll (May 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Me, as an American citizen.
> ...




I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.


----------



## Correll (May 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What is relevant here, is, your question was answered.
> ...




My response answered your question. What you should have done, if you were engaged in good faith discussion, was go, "ok point taken" and dropped it.


INSTEAD, you focused on a disagreement of opinion and launched another attack on personal, religious and racial grounds. 


You are an bigot and an asshole. 


Query. BY YOUR STANDARDS, do you believe that Lincoln lied us into war?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> I clearly stated what you made up, and you cut it. So, you want to know? Go back and fucking read it.


I see how you respond when you are informed of an error in your argument.



Correll said:


> You are an bigot and an asshole



The economy was damn good in terms of job creation and employment prior to Bush allowing us to be hit by terrorists snd then invading Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq,



You are certifiably insane.

You and who’s army? How many guns you got? Were you going to attack Baghdad under an American flag from Turkey or Kuwait or Iran or Syria? Do you own a tank or just a Humvee with a 50 Caliber Machine Gun on Top? Who would drive and who would man the gun?

Seriously we could cut the hell out our defense budget if you are such a badass.

Will you consider an Correll invasion of North Korea and waging war there to take down Trump’s lover.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> and the UN can go fuck itself.



I suppose that is a fact, that it could, in the Trump Universe.

W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections. That is because at the end of 2002, in his public statements and actions W did not see the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein from power if were to be verified in the near future if the United Nations Security Council were able to verify that Iraq was disarmed and brought into compliance with his United Nations Security Council resolutions relevant to disarmament.

It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming a Iraq peacefully.

However as a result of your anger and stupidity your desire for the United Nations Security Council to go fuck itself (which includes telling  the United States of America to go fuck itself) was a huge mistake. That has been confirmed now by the man you voted for and who became a one term President.

That anti-UN  mistake by you and W cost the American taxpayer $5 trillion and it cost the world 500,000 innocent lives. Why are you still want the United Nations to go fuck itself is beyond reason and mental atrocity on your part.


----------



## Correll (May 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > (Deu 10:19 KJV) _Love ye therefore the stranger: *for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.*_
> ...


You say "this is how corell expresses", and then post a bunch of shit that I did not say.

That is you lying about what I said.

That you feel a need to lie about what I said, in order to attack it, is your brain realizing that I am supporting my position better than you, and knowing that you CAN'T argue against what I am actually saying. 


Question: By your standards, do you believe that Abe Lincoln lied us into war?


----------



## Correll (May 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > To a point about Putin and Trump you come back with a claim about Bush not listening to PUtin?
> ...




The point was about Putin and Trump. That you were against the war, has been well established. Are you just a spam bot, or a human being?

If human, stop acting like a spam bot, dumbass.


----------



## Correll (May 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > OR, more obviously, I was referring to the SPECIFIC SITES BEING SUSPECTED.
> ...



Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position. YOURS is that somehow, you are sure that that means he was lying. 

You also, like to harp on the human cost of war, as though someone is arguing that it is... I don't know, NOT BAD? or something? Probably trying to use an Appeal to Emotion to make up from not being able to support your arguments with any logical explanations. 


Question: By your standards, that we have seen here, from you, do you feel that Abe Lincoln lied US into war?


----------



## Correll (May 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I clearly stated what you made up, and you cut it. So, you want to know? Go back and fucking read it.
> ...




By your standards, do you believe that Abe Lincoln lied US into war?


----------



## Correll (May 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq,
> ...




It amazes me that you don't mind pretending to be retarded, in order to make a partisan jab at me.


I did not claim to be waging war alone. You were mistaken if you truly believe that I said that. 

Thus, I answer your jab.


However you are still pretending to be retarded. 


Do you mind if I call you Tard-o?


----------



## Correll (May 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > and the UN can go fuck itself.
> ...




It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact. 

That was the crux of the debate, whether peaceful means could achieve our goals. 

That you strongly state your OPINION, does not make it a fact. 

Indeed, even if you were able to prove that you were right at that time, the nation as a whole had to make choices BASED ON WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME.


You are playing silly games to justify your smearing of good people, based on your bigotry and being as ass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> You say "this is how corell expresses", and then post a bunch of shit that I did not say.



Express - convey (a thought or feeling) in words *or by gestures and conduct.*

Your *conduct* as a self-proclaimed sovereign citizen of the United States of America sand as a cultural Christian was when you opposed the peaceful disarmament of Iraq through UN inspections and lusted for war sand bloodshed , out of your uncontrolled anger at SH, to g the point v that you endorsed the US military doing this to Shams Amin - a stranger: 


The Pentagon reported on 7 April that .A B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.​


> Toby Kieth: And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you. Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.



When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out -- torso first, then the head -- her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed.​
That must be Shams Amin, daughter of Salma Amin and sister to Mohammed and Said Amin, who were all killed by the four 2000 lb BGU bunker buster bombs inside or near the Al Saa Restaurant in the Mansour District of Baghdad, Iraq on April 7 2003.​
Have you ever heard the expression that actions say  a thousand words.

Your actions tell me you are a blood thirsty warmonger that has no regret for backing the bloody killing  of Shams Amin for working at a restaurant where the dictator of Iraq may have been hanging out. A fucking restsurant is a mikitary target to you? What kind of Christian is that.

When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out -- *torso first, then the head *-- her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed.FIRC

AUHHH BUT you decided that Shams’ mother needed to learn how to live in a democracy. That action on your part says a thousand words about you and your Christian Tribe. None of them good.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.



No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441  which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some  dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not  on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> did not claim to be waging war alone.



YES YOU DID.


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> the war announced and started on March 17 2003 which forced peaceful inspections to end. Biden, Both Clintons, Kerry, Schumer and Pelosi opposed that date for starting a war. They all called for continued inspections...... as did six out of ten Americans at the time. You and @Correll are War Mongers exactly like Dick Cheney and Colin Powell who supported ending inspections. Its the truth supported by the facts following 1441.


Just repeating the obvious 
-


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 21, 2021)

Nominee ,,, Joe Biden.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,., Donald Trump

Electoral vote .,,.,,306.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. 232

Popular vote 81,268,924.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., 74,216,154

Percentage 51.3%.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,,,..,.. 46.9%

*2020 United States presidential election* - Wikipedia


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position.


In America you have the right to voice your opinion.

Mine, on the other hand disagree with yours

*George W. Bush really did lie about WMDs, and his aides are still lying for him*
Ari Fleischer is a liar. He lies about stuff big and small. And as President George W. Bush’s press secretary during the run-up to the Iraq War, he participated in a large effort to exaggerate and misrepresent what the intelligence community believed about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s (negligible) links to al-Qaeda.

Ari Fleischer is wrong: Bush did lie, and people did die - Vox

*Author claims Bush knew Iraq had no WMD
President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war* in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, an explosive new book claims.The charge is made in “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism” by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, released today.S
Author claims Bush knew Iraq had no WMD (today.com)

In the early 2000s, the administrations of George W. Bush and Tony Blair asserted that Saddam Hussein's weapons programs were still actively building weapons, and that large stockpiles of WMDs were hidden in Iraq.

Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003, under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Hussein give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, *shortly before his country was attacked*. The United States asserted that Hussein's frequent lack of cooperation was a breach of Resolution 1441, *but failed to convince the United Nations Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force* due to lack of evidence. *Despite this, Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons* he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War instead. A year later, the United States Senate officially released the *Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence* on Iraq which concluded that many of the *Bush Administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were misleading and not supported by the underlying intelligence*. United States–led inspections later found that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling; the war was called by many, including 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a "mistake".
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia

Bush knew what he was doing, a military war creates jobs while deflecting his bad statesmanship.

Bush did indeed know what and why he took us into a war
Then again we could ask him, he is still around>
-


----------



## Godboy (May 21, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


The right was for ousting Saddam, not rebuilding stupid fucking Iraq.


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 21, 2021)

Godboy said:


> The right was for ousting Saddam, not rebuilding stupid fucking Iraq.


Do you know why the FBI puts comments like yours on the FBI watch list-?


----------



## Godboy (May 21, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > The right was for ousting Saddam, not rebuilding stupid fucking Iraq.
> ...


No, please enlighten us.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 21, 2021)

Godboy said:


> The right was for ousting Saddam, not rebuilding stupid fucking Iraq.


Tell that to “rightwing dingdong Correll..

IF you break it you  own it. 

But what did you think was gonna happen when DicknW took SH out? If we didn’t stay to nation bu either Iran would be taken over - or a Sunnis and Shiite full blown civil war would have given Sunni extremists linked to al Qaeda a shot at doing what ISIS EVENTUALLY DID.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.


You are saying that you think you have the right of absolute authority (no one is higher than you, no law can restrain you)  to wage war against whomever you perceive to be an enemy. a sovereign is not responsible to anybody and is not bound by any laws. A sovereign is very alone.

Your sovereignty does not come with an army that must follow your command so you are indeed alone.



Correll said:


> I did not claim to be waging war alone. You were mistaken if you truly believe that I said that.



So why that reply? Do you command an Army and Air Force with your right of sovereignty?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.
> 
> That was the crux of the debate, whether peaceful means could achieve our goals.


What was the goal of disarming Iraq peacefully.

What was goal?

You are on record supporting this goal are you not?



Correll said:


> 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.





Correll said:


> Why do you never hold Saddam responsible for his choices?


 


Correll said:


> I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument.
> 
> Note sure what you mean by "used by". There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case.
> 
> And they won



You were very explicit here about your pre-invasion goal:





Correll said:


> 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.



Your goal did not include disarming Iraq peacefully because disarming Iraq peacefully denied your  stated goal: Regime Change through massive bombardment and ground assault followed by nation building by the US Military unprepared for the role.

To you whether peaceful means could achieve your goal was never an issue to be debated. Never.


----------



## surada (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > The right was for ousting Saddam, not rebuilding stupid fucking Iraq.
> ...



The Dual Containment Policy worked for 20 years. Everyone in the ME knew that war on Iraq would make Iran ascendant .. But Israel demanded that SH be overthrown since 1996. There was NO benefit to the US or the Middle East.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You say "this is how corell expresses", and then post a bunch of shit that I did not say.
> ...




You are raving. I did not believe that the "peaceful disarmament" was working.


I have repeatedly asked you if you understand that people that disagree with you, don't agree with you.


Here we see that you do NOT understand that. 

You are judging me, AS THOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU, that peaceful disarmament was working.



That is you being either insanely close minded or just very dishonest so as to justify being an asshole.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.
> ...




I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war. 


Do you understand that I disagree with you?


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > did not claim to be waging war alone.
> ...




NO, I did not. YOU are raving. If you did not cut my post to nothing, you could see, right there on teh page, that I did not do as you were saying.


Which is WHY you always cut the posts down to nothing. 


So that your lies look more plausible, to the lazy or stupid. Which is the only audience that liberals care about today, because it is the only ones you have a chance of winning over.


----------



## surada (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position.
> ...



Do  you understand that that conclusion is vague purposefully SO THAT PARTISAN LIKE YOU CAN READ INTO IT THAT WHICH THEY WANT TO SEE?


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.
> ...




Do you see the words, "as part of America"?


Your rabid partisanship is literally blinding  you. 

And you are being an asshole based on YOUR MISPERCEPTIONS.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.
> ...




Hint: YOu don't have to spend the time to source my own words. I remember saying those words, and I don't play dishonest games like you libs do.


These were not my "GOALS" but my personal reason for supporting the policy of invasion. 

I am discussing the "peaceful process of disarmament" because YOU are obsessed with it. 


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


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> Do you see the words, "as part of America"?


I am part of America but I would never think to proclaim to the world that I am sovereign so  I can wage war against my perceived enemy when there is no real threat from that perceived enemy because he has 200 UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq and he’s being careful not to even fart Loudly in public.

You said you were special and you had sovereign rights as part of America to wage war against your enemies. Of course I know you’re making it all up. But you did say it. So you are special and you are freaking alone.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


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


Yes and that would be compatible with waiting another 90 days to let the inspectors make a final determination because if the inspections went to shit because Saddam Hussein pulled something yeah the army there and ready to go and no one would be questioning W’s decision to invade.

that’s what six out of 10 Americans preferred  doing. So we have every damn right to question that ignorant decision not to wait 90 days after the whole situation with the Iraq and been going on for 12 years and finally because of the threat of force around his country Saddam Hussain was doing everything possible to be verified disarmed.

If you were OK with not inviting produce regime change then your whole argument is even more stupid than first expressed on this thread.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Do you see the words, "as part of America"?
> ...




You are really reaching here, trying to justify your being so fucking retarded that you can't... read a simple post and actually understand it, AND THEN you are an asshole based shit you made up in your own head.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.
> ...




You were happy to keep fucking around with Saddam forever. America was not.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Do you see the words, "as part of America"?
> ...




Not, it would be reasonable for you to start a thread, even with a poll, something along the lines of "Was the Iraq Invasion good for America?" and discuss the pros and cons of the policy and make your case.


BUT, you are fixated on trying to prove that those on the other side of the issue than you, lied or supported a lie, and thus are bad people. 


You cannot or refuse to, understand that people that disagree with you, disagree with you. 


You insist on judging people WHO CLEARLY STATE THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT BUSH LIED, as though they believe he lied.


That is you being an asshole. 

That is all this thread is. You being an asshole.


----------



## surada (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Why don't you butt out and leave them in peace? All Islam is fundamental. Its called the 5 Pillars of Islam.


----------



## surada (May 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.
> ...



Even Bush's father opposed junior's dumbass invasion.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




The War on Terror started with them attacking US.  Did you forget that?


----------



## surada (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Jesus.. What is wrong with you ? "Muslims" didn't attack the US. OBL attacked the US and tried to blame the Saudis and start a war between Muslims and the West.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

surada said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Irrelevant. Are you just here to throw shit at your enemies, like a monkey?


----------



## surada (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



Papa Bush warned him not to invade Iraq. He had enough experience to in the Middle East know what a can of worms that would be and how it would benefit Iran.

Most of why this went down was just stupidity.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




You confused about the way people can be members of a larger group? 

That is your problem. Deal with it. 

Meanwhile, my point stands. We CAN'T leave them in peace. They attacked and will attack us again. Being connected with the Muslim world means we need to decide how we are going to deal with terrorism. 

What is your plan to deal with it?


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




You only care about what he said, because you can use it to smear your enemies. 


Like a monkey throwing his own poo. 



This whole thread is you lefties being so close  minded, that you can't understand that people that disagree with you, disagree with you.


You look retarded.  The only reason that more people don't realize how retarded you look, is that your are being soooo retarded that it is hard for non retarded people to even understand what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## surada (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




You are beyond stupid. Terrorists kill mostly Muslims, you idiot.


----------



## Correll (May 22, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




What is your plan to deal with their attacks on US?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> What is your plan to deal with their attacks on US?


In March 2003 the  plan was let the inspectors deal with SH and his WMD issue  who had nothing to do with the 09/11/01 attacks. Finish the job in Afghanistan and pursue OBL in Pakistan while cleaning out the real terrorists hiding in the no man’s land on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

 And Don’t  spend $5 trillion and 250,000 troops and most of our intelligence assets in Iraq that didn’t have any WMD. That’s was the plan.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are raving. I did not believe that the "peaceful disarmament" was working.
> 
> I have repeatedly asked you if you understand that people that disagree with you, don't agree with you.


The purpose of this discussion is to arrive at the truth. One key issue is getting to the truth that the peaceful disarming of Iraq through inspections was working. When you say you didn’t “believe” that they were working you are avoiding getting to the truth. And the truth is the peaceful means of UN inspectors was working unless the UNSC decided it was not. What you ‘believed’ had no bearing on the matter of fact. You have no honest basis to say they were not working. When you claim that SH continued to poke the Bear after 1441 You are lying. That is a lie. You cannot ground your argument in a lie.

It us not a disagreement we are having. You are lying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?


Shams Amin did not attack us. Why did you kill her? SH had nothing to do with it .


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> You were happy to keep fucking around with Saddam forever. America was not.


Like I told you. You do not speak for America.

Facts: Through March 10 2003 Bush was happy to leave Saddam in power if the UNSC declared SH in compliance with all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq by March 17, 2003. That is public knowledge. It is therefore a fact.

It means on March 10 there was no threat to world peace according to Bush and Blair if SH remained in power. ZERO THREAT!


But you have been duped into believing that SH did something threat-wise between March 10 and March 17 that made it NECESSARY all of a sudden that Bush had to kill Shams Amin in a restaurant in order to try to kill SH.

What did SH do after March 10 that left BUSH no other choice but to invade Iraq and start a quagmire?

If you cannot find any facts about what SH        did after March 10,  your answer is that you do not know and your arguments worded thus far are entirely flawed based facts that we have and can know.


----------



## Correll (May 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What is your plan to deal with their attacks on US?
> ...




Got it. Your plan is to just accept it as the new normal. 


Question: Why as a society did we not see this coming and NOT do it?


----------



## Correll (May 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You are raving. I did not believe that the "peaceful disarmament" was working.
> ...




The purpose of this thread is to hold people (your enemies) responsible for doing something they did not do, ie knowingly supporting a lie.

You are so blinded with partisan hate, that you cannot respect that other people disagree with your opinion on whether or not "peaceful disarmament" was working.


----------



## Correll (May 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?
> ...



You so ignorant you never heard of collateral damage? Stop living under a rock.


----------



## Correll (May 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You were happy to keep fucking around with Saddam forever. America was not.
> ...



The fact that America did not keep fucking around with Saddam forever, shows that "I do speak for America", at least in this instance. 


You seem confused by the concept of history. You don't get to deny shit that happened, happened.


----------



## surada (May 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Arab leadership is out to stop these terrorists and providing intel to the US.  Have been for 20 years. They are a bigger threat to the Arabs than they are to us.. You are really dumb and irrational.

Have you considered the consequences of overthrowing Saddam and impowering Iran? ISIS came out of Camp Bucca prison in 2004. Have you considered that Al Qaeda came out of our war on Afghanistn to save Enron's Dabhol white elephant?

Have you considered that when we put Iran in the catbird set we got the al Houthis in Yemen?


----------



## Correll (May 23, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




"Arab leadership" is not going to stop terrorism, especially when the fbi regularly ignores their and other warning signs on a constant basis.


Your plan, the plan we are using as a society, at this time, is to just accept terrorism as part of the new normal. Every now and then, muslims terrorists will get upset over something in our society and kill some of us. 


Question: Why did we as a society choose that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position. YOURS is that somehow, you are sure that that means he was lying.


However, the fact is that you cannot deny that  your position that George Bush was sure “leaving no doubt” that Iraq was hiding WMD from 1441 inspectors beyond March 10 2003 is solely based upon your personal partisan political bias and not on knowable facts that are available to us.

My position is based solely in knowable facts that partisans such as you refuse to examine and discuss and refute if that were possible. Your only recourse is to ignore the facts presented to you and to cheapen language by constantly insulting the presenter of fact.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position. YOURS is that somehow, you are sure that that means he was lying.
> ...




Dude, how many times have you looked an  issue and been "Sure" that no one could disagree with your take on it, and yet people on the other side of the political divide still manage to disagree with you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Dude, how many times have you looked an issue and been "Sure" that no one could disagree with your take on it, and yet people on the other side of the political divide still manage to disagree with you?


Look. You did not mention the critical word “fact” in your reply. That is a fact. My “take” is based on knowable facts. Your disagreement is not based on facts that we can know.

I have not argued that “no one could disagree with my take on it”. I believe the absolute opposite. *The far left anti-war whackjobs* at anti-war.com don’t agree with me on this matter of what exactly Bush lied about.

*Bush was not lying about the threat of WMD in Iraq prior to 1441.*

You can only know why that is true when you decide to accept ONLY facts and the timeline of the Push fir war and all the components between the summer of 2002 and the start of the invasion in Mid-March 2003.

Every time you divert the discussion by making my argument for me its your continued method of cheapening language and making it clear that facts don’t matter when you do not have them on your side sand they don’t fit your political motivation.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, how many times have you looked an issue and been "Sure" that no one could disagree with your take on it, and yet people on the other side of the political divide still manage to disagree with you?
> ...




Irrelevant. 


The point is that this is about you being unable to understand that other people disagree with you.


We do not believe that Bush lied about wmds. 


You insist on judging us, and attacking us, as though we DO agree with you, and support him anyways.


That is you being insanely closed minded. 


That  you are an asshole to people BASED ON THAT, is just the icing on the cake.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> We do not believe that Bush lied about wmds.


But like some religious people do you choose your beliefs based  on faith that it’s true not on grounding it on the facts.

You still cant use the word “fact” in your replies on the topic of engaging and examining the facts..

Bush was willing to allow SH to remain in power up until March 10 2003. That is a knowable fact by his public actions as POTUS.

If Bush was absolutely positive on March 9 2003 that Iraq possessed and was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from 1441 inspectors he would have never made that offer - to leave that threat to the world and to the USA.

Think about before dodging the facts save the truth  once again in your faith based replies.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > We do not believe that Bush lied about wmds.
> ...




Your inability to grasp that other people disagree with you, is a problem with YOU. 


Question. By your standards, did Abe Lincoln lie us into war?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> You insist on judging us, and attacking us, as though we DO agree with you, and support him anyways.



I don’t think like that in anyway. You don’t agree with me because you don’t agree that knowing and dealing with facts matters in your faith based world.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Question. By your standards, did Abe Lincoln lie us into war?


Do you have any facts for me to consider the are evidence that HONEST ABE lied us into war.

IF You researched it and found evidence that ABE  LIED and started a preemptive war against the SOUTH While UN inspectors were in the South searching for hidden slaves or something - sure I’ll consider a brief summary if your facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

FACTS Correll !!! Let’s deal with FACTS.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You insist on judging us, and attacking us, as though we DO agree with you, and support him anyways.
> ...




You insist on judging your enemies AS THOUGH THEY AGREE WITH YOU.


You don't state, that "you supported the war because you made a wrong call on whether or not peaceful disarmament was working".


Instead you state, " you are bloodthirsty because you insist on support the war, even though peaceful disarmament was working".


That is you, being unable to grasp that people disagree with you, and attacking them based on your belief that they THINK the same shit as you but ACT differently to it. 


That is something wrong with you.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Question. By your standards, did Abe Lincoln lie us into war?
> ...




He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Instead you state, " you are bloodthirsty because you insist on support the war, even though peaceful disarmament was working".



No. That is not true. You are a bloodthirsty warmonger because you are perpetuating several of the myths and lies that bloodthirsty warmongers perpetuated in March 2003 to justify the bloodthirsty invasion.

Here’s an example.  Its your “Poking  the Bear after 1441” myth . 




Correll said:


> My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit. It is strange with the benefit of hindsight that what he was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required.
> An odd choice for him. Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit.
> Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.



Peacefully disarming Iraq had no chance at succeeding to anyone who supported the warmonger myth that SH was not fully and actively cooperating with 1441 inspections prior to the decision to invade.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.


If you consider him to be a moderate because he was opposed to slavery on a moral basis but did not support emancipation because it was justified  in the Constitution - well That’s fine.

Can you connect the dots on how that was a lie that  Lincoln falsely sold to justify the invasion by the UNITED STATES into the CONFEDERATE STATES after Jeff Davis was given a final opportunity to free  the slaves. Then Jeff Davis was half done setting the slaves free -  Lincoln decided to invade the South anyway.

So I’m not seeing a lie or any kind of deceptive practice here at all by Honest Abe. The facts don’t support it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.



Why did you say Lincoln “waged a war to free the slaves”  .  

Lincoln did not get elected because he supported slavery and then flip flop and launch a war into the SOUTH to force them to give up slavery.

What history books are you reading.

This is my understanding if what happened at the start of the war when Lincoln tried to send supplies to American soldiers located in the newly formed Confederate States where the true Americans were  surrounded by the traitors. 

The Confederacy learned of Lincoln’s plans and demanded that the forts surrender under threat of force. When the U.S. soldiers refused, South Carolinians bombarded Fort Sumter in the center of Charleston harbor. After a 34-hour battle, the soldiers inside the fort surrendered to the Confederates.​


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Instead you state, " you are bloodthirsty because you insist on support the war, even though peaceful disarmament was working".
> ...




I disagree with you. 

ALL that time you spend arguing that your position is right, is irrelevant because the point of decision was nearly two decades ago.

EVEN if you convinced me NOW, it would not change my motives THEN.


You feel that you can prove that your enemies are "bloodthirsty" because you are unable to accept that people disagree with you.


That you are certain that you are right about the "facts"  of the case, is irrelevant to the fact that I disagree with you. 


That you think I am a bad person for not thinking like you, or because you assume bad shit about the way I think, is irrelevant.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.
> ...






Lincoln lied to the American people to get himself elected. He knew that the South would rise up in rebellion. His talk of collecting tariffs and saving "The Union" were just bullshit excuses. The moment he had an excuse, he freed the slaves. 


If he wanted to save the union, all he had to do, was NOT run for office. 


He lied us into war. 


What about Wilson? Do you believe he lied US into war?


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.
> ...





He ran on being allowing slavery to continue. But the moment he had an excuse, he freed them. He also knew that his election would lead to the south rising up in rebellion. 


ONly a bloodthirsty warmonger would have supported Lincoln knowing what an abolitionists he was. That is why he had to lie to the American voters to get elected.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> He ran on being allowing slavery to continue. But the moment he had an excuse, he freed them. He also knew that his election would lead to the south rising up in rebellion.



If you have facts to back that up I’d live to see them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> If he wanted to save the union, all he had to do, was NOT run for office.


But he ran for office - that is a fact. Do you have any facts that support your claim that Lincoln lied.


Are you saying that Abraham Lincoln is responsible for the south seceding from the union?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> He also knew that his election would lead to the south rising up in rebellion.​




stick with facts - he couldn’t know that.  He was the nominee of the anti-slavery Republican Party at the time.

In 2024 should Dems not run a candidate because the Confederate traitors of our time will secede from the Union if Trump doesn’t win? 


I THOUGHT  we lived in a Democratic Republic where voters decide - not slave owners. 

In the eleven states that would later declare their secession from the Union and be controlled by Confederate armies, ballots for Lincoln were cast only in Virginia, where he received 1,929 votes (1.15 percent of the total).Abraham Lincoln: Hannibal Hamlin​



en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › 1860_...
1860 United States presidential elec​


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He ran on being allowing slavery to continue. But the moment he had an excuse, he freed them. He also knew that his election would lead to the south rising up in rebellion.
> ...




WE have the historical record of his actions and the actions of the South. He had to know the effect of his being elected on the South, or he would not have lied about his stance on slavery. 

By your standards, he lied us into war. Do you support this, thus  being a bloodthirsty warmonger?


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > If he wanted to save the union, all he had to do, was NOT run for office.
> ...




Sure. He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, when his earlier words and later actions prove that he was anything but moderate. He was a rabid abolitionists, willing to see people die by the hundreds of thousands to end slavery. 

Thus, by your standards, he lied us into war.


Do you support that? Are you a bloodthirsty war monger?


I know that you do and are.


----------



## surada (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Didn't you know that it was all lies before the invasion? If not, why not?

Oilmen, Arabs, Diplomats, historians, the French ALL knew. So did American expats all over the region.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He also knew that his election would lead to the south rising up in rebellion.​
> ...



Of course he could. The slavers that dominated the South, their entire lives and family well being were built on slavery. There was not chance that they would accept a threat to it, lying down.

This is a FACT. a FACT I tell you. I deal in FACTS. 

Your FAITH, that Lincoln would not lie, is just that, not fact based. 


You are a war monger, a bloodthirst warmonger, willing to support lying the country into war.


Much like with your support of Wilson.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Everything I heard at the time, it seemed most likely that he was just hiding them well. And why not? He had a good sized nation to hide shit in. 

I don't see how any team of outsiders can find something in a nation, if the national government wants to hide it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't see how any team of outsiders can find something in a nation, if the national government wants to hide it.


Thats also why you are a blood thirsty warmonger. You contradict what the professional Weapons inspectors said they could do with an additional 90 days of SH PROACTIVE cooperation.

And you’re forgetting one of the most important points. If the CIA said they knew that Saddam Hussein was hiding specific weapons from the inspectors they should’ve been able to go in and show them where they were. If they didn’t know where they were then they did not have any actionable intelligence worth starting a war over.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Thus, by your standards, he lied us into war.



No.  My standard is to rely on knowable facts. That is one standard you are unable to meet.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how any team of outsiders can find something in a nation, if the national government wants to hide it.
> ...




Your inability to understand that all that was considered at great length at the time, is you being a closed mind partisan hack.


WE DISAGREE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, by your standards, he lied us into war.
> ...




You being certain of them, is the standard for that. 


I am certain that LIncoln had to know that. THus, by YOUR rules, Lincoln lied us into war.

Do you support that? Are you a bloodthirst warmonger?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> I am certain that LIncoln had to know that. THus, by YOUR rules, Lincoln lied us into war.



No. You have not presented any knowable facts about what Lincoln knew. And besides that, Lincoln didn’t launch a preemptive war to abolish slavery. The War was fought because the Confederate traitors fired upon American soldiers.

SADDAM HUSSEIN was cooperating with UNSC inspectors when Bush openly lied by saying they were hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Are you saying Lincoln lied about the Confederate traitors firing canons ( WMD)on American soldiers at Ft Sumter to start a war under false pretext to abolish slavery.. 

Lincoln didn’t lie. Bush lied.


----------



## Correll (May 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I am certain that LIncoln had to know that. THus, by YOUR rules, Lincoln lied us into war.
> ...



Sure I did. That you disagree with me on that, well, I dismiss that, because FACTS. I cannot grasp that you cannot see what I clearly see. Your blind faith is stupid.  I think I covered all the bases and if I missed any, consider them done. 

Thus, by your rules, Lincoln lied us into war. 


Do you think the world would be a better place if Wilson had not lied us into WWI?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Sure I did.


You are a liar.  You have not presented a single fact that proves that Lincoln lied the Nation into needless War.. The well known you will not address fact is that the Confederate traitors fired first and started the CIVIL WAR. Lincoln never lied about anything. He was the anti-slavery Republican Party nominee. The FACTS show that Honest ABE was straight up about opposition to slavery prior to his election. You are a liar because you have no facts to back up your ridiculous arguments that Lincoln lied America into war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> ou being certain of them, is the standard for that.



facts are facts. They do not change or cease to be based on my certainty.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> I am certain that LIncoln had to know that.



What facts have made you certain?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Of course he could.



You have no fact that support your statement That Lincoln  knew the Confederate traitors would secede from the union and lay siege to Fort Sumter and start a Civil War.


Do you think Lincoln was lying when he stated his opinion on secession

“My opinion is that no state can, in any way lawfully, get out of the Union, without the consent of the others; and that it is the duty of the President, and other government functionaries, to run the machine as it is.”​
That is a fact. The traitor states seceded after Lincoln was elected and before he was inaugurated. There are no facts to support your lies that Lincoln lied America into war like W did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> By your standards, do you believe that Abe Lincoln lied US into war?



No. Not at all..You have posted no facts to convince me that Lincoln lied. If you think you posted some facts tell me where or post them again if you reply to this post.

And the severe problem with your attack on Lincoln is the fact that Confederate traitors started the war. Lincoln did not start the CIVIL WAR so it is impossible that Lincoln lied us into war unless you have proof that Fort Sumter did not happen. Lincoln lied about it..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Question: By your standards, do you believe that Abe Lincoln lied us into war?



No.  I find this call for militia to liberate Federal property and soldiers to be refreshingly honest.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.​
Do you see any lies in Lincoln’s address??


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> The slavers that dominated the South, their entire lives and family well being were built on slavery. There was not chance that they would accept a threat to it, lying down.
> 
> This is a FACT. a FACT I tell you. I deal in FACTS.



What did Lincoln lie about relative to those facts?

President-elect Lincoln was not a threat to their lives and family When they decided to secede.

The facts tell anyone who wants to listen that Lincoln didn’t actually free all enslaved people because he issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure two years into the war.  It didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. It only applied to the Traitor states that had seceded from the Union.. 

The South was run by idiots back then like its run by idiots right now. Lincoln didn’t force them to be one traitors.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.



Why did you lie that the well known, historically  documented 1441 UNSC inspection regime that was peacefully disarming Iraq was not a fact. 



Correll said:


> It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> That you disagree with me on that, well, I dismiss that, because FACTS.


Will you please complete your thought?


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Sure I did.
> ...



Lincoln was all over the place in his rhetoric on slavery, downplaying his opposition as much as he could, to try to create the illusion for the voters that his election would NOT mean immediate civil war.


By your standards, he lied us into war. 

That you give him a pass, shows that your real concern is not "lying the country into war" but just smearing your current day enemies.


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > ou being certain of them, is the standard for that.
> ...




Have you ever heard the concept that "humans are illogical pattern seeking machines"?


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Of course he could.
> ...




That was not a fact. That was, at best, Lincoln's honest opinion on the matter. 

That you call it a fact, at best shows that your ability to be rational about what are "Facts" is very weak.


Query: How many organizations are you a member of, that you willingly joined, that you are not allowed to leave under pain of death? And of those, how many of them did not clearly tell you that, before you joined?


----------



## surada (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




What does Lincln have to do with the invasion of Iraq?


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > By your standards, do you believe that Abe Lincoln lied US into war?
> ...




Irrelevant. His actions demonstrated that he knew that his strong opposition would lead to war, or he would not have allowed his team to dishonestly present him as a moderate on the issue.


Lincoln claimed that he just wanted Fort Sumter to stay there to collect tariffs. That was bullshit. It was not about the money. It was about ending slavery. That was his passion. That is what the Republican Party was founded to do. It was their primary reason for existing. 


By your standards, with a WIDE MARGIN, he lied US into war. That you give him a pass, is you demonstrating that you do not care about that. That your passion in this thread, is not that, but simply spinning up shit to throw at your enemies, like a monkey.


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Question: By your standards, do you believe that Abe Lincoln lied us into war?
> ...




Yep. He is pretending that the Civil War was about Federal Property, when it was about slavery. 

He lied us into war. Your giving him a pass, reveals you to be a hypocrite.


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The slavers that dominated the South, their entire lives and family well being were built on slavery. There was not chance that they would accept a threat to it, lying down.
> ...



Freeing the slaves in the majority of the slave states, meant that slavery was effectively ended in the country.

That was an additional lie by Lincoln,  pretending that he was not caring about the slaves in the border states, when we both know that his action would lead to their being freed in short order. 

As was demonstrated by actual events. 

That you give him a pass for lying us into war, is you showing that this thread is not about that, but about smearing your partisan enemies.


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.
> ...




Do you believe that I am so wise and rational that I could not be honestly "wrong" about an historical fact?


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That you disagree with me on that, well, I dismiss that, because FACTS.
> ...




I did. It is the same as your thought process as demonstrated in this thread, over and over again. You reach a conclusion about history, and it is then a FACT, and there can be no disagreement, because "FACT".


This is your world, and I am just playing by your rules.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> I did. It is the same as your thought process as demonstrated in this thread, over and over again. You reach a conclusion about history, and it is then a FACT, and there can be no disagreement, because "FACT".


You are a liar. I like most thinking people don’t reach a conclusion and then it is a fact. I examine facts and from those facts I reach a conclusion.

You can disagree with my conclusion but you must challenge my facts or produce and argument that sites my interpretation of the facts is flawed.

You do not challenge my facts - I suspect your faith drives you to believe you are in possession of truth revealed unto you as a true and proper Christian American and that entities you to disregard facts that fall to keep the heavenly glow shining down on your tribe.  Or your are lazy. Or you are dishonest snd don’t really care about facts that inhibit the makes believe reality that you have created.


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I did. It is the same as your thought process as demonstrated in this thread, over and over again. You reach a conclusion about history, and it is then a FACT, and there can be no disagreement, because "FACT".
> ...




I have challenged your facts and you dismiss my challenges, because "FACTS". 

I am playing by your rules now. 

By your standards Abe Lincoln lied US into war, and you give him a pass. That shows that you don't care about lying us into war, that this thread was meant to just be a partisan hit piece.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> Freeing the slaves in the majority of the slave states, meant that slavery was effectively ended in the country.



Show me (FACTS) what Lincoln said during the campaign about emancipation that led the traitors to secede from the UNION prior to his inauguration and then fired on American Troops while he was just settling in the White House.

The South started the CIVILWar. If you dispute that FACT show me why.

The worst thing that Lincoln did if you were a disgusting slave owner prior his to taking office was he agreed with the majority sentiment in the nation that new territories could not become slave States.

Entering office Lincoln opposed ending slavery in slave states because as he stated publicly at the time owning slaves was a Constitutional right and he favored the Slave States settling the matter on their own.

Lincoln did not come in swinging a sword to end slavery where it existed. The traitors attacked the nation that Lincoln swore to protect. The traitors gave Lincoln no choice. Lincoln only came to supporting emancipation in the slave states that rebelled AFTER the War was well under way. Its was a military policy accept runaway slaves from Confederate States tiv serve in the war effort.

You have your history assbackwards. In reality It was the War that forced emancipation. It was not emancipation that caused or forced the war..

There fact that Lincoln at first did not free slaves in UNION states totally destroys the ignorance based exercise you stated.   

Traitors forced the war.  That is based on the facts .


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> I have challenged your facts and you dismiss my challenges, because "FACTS".


You are a liar. Give me a post number where you challenged one or more if my facts.

Saying you cannot be bothered with the facts is not a challenge. Thats  called a cop out.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> By your standards Abe Lincoln lied US into war, and you give him a pass


What standards are you citing. what is the post #?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> This is your world, and I am just playing by your rules.


Where did I write this?

“ ....there can be no disagreement, because "FACT".

You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your inability to understand that all that was considered at great length at the time, is you being a closed mind partisan hack.



You did not attempt to disput the FACTS posted:
(1) the professional Weapons inspectors said they could peaceably disarm Iraq with an additional 90 days of the PROACTIVE cooperation that SH was providing.
(2)  If the CIA said they knew that Saddam Hussein was hiding specific weapons from the inspectors they should’ve been able to go in and show them where they were. If they didn’t know where they were then they did not have any actionable intelligence worth starting a war over.

Neither was considered at all let alone at “Great Lengths” prior to the invasion. That is why  Half a million are dead and $5 Trillion wasted on an unnecessary War.

You failed to meaningfully respond
To this:


NotfooledbyW said:


> You contradict what the professional Weapons inspectors said they could do with an additional 90 days of SH PROACTIVE cooperation.
> 
> And you’re forgetting one of the most important points. If the CIA said they knew that Saddam Hussein was hiding specific weapons from the inspectors they should’ve been able to go in and show them where they were. If they didn’t know where they were then they did not have any actionable intelligence worth starting a war over.



I was responding to this:



Correll said:


> Everything I heard at the time, it seemed most likely that he was just hiding them well. And why not? He had a good sized nation to hide shit in.
> 
> I don't see how any team of outsiders can find something in a nation, if the national government wants to hide it.



Its why you are a bloodthirsty warmonger.


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Freeing the slaves in the majority of the slave states, meant that slavery was effectively ended in the country.
> ...




I like the way that you try to limit the discussion of Lincoln to what he said DURING THE CAMPAIGN, as though the slave owners, were unable to know about his earlier, very strong abolitionists statements and positions.


That shows that you ALREADY KNOW, that Lincoln was a very strong ABOLITIONIST, and that further you know that the slaver owners would know that, and that Lincoln KNEW THAT THEY KNEW. 


Thus, his lying during the campaign, pretending to be moderate, was him lying US into war.


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I have challenged your facts and you dismiss my challenges, because "FACTS".
> ...




ALL OF THEM.


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > By your standards Abe Lincoln lied US into war, and you give him a pass
> ...




The standards you have demonstrated this entire thread, as I have repeatedly explained. 

Your.... odd pretense of confusion about that, is not credible.


DO YOU THINK THAT WILSON LIED US INTO WAR?


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > This is your world, and I am just playing by your rules.
> ...




Have you ever heard the phrase "humans are an irrational pattern seeking machine"?


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your inability to understand that all that was considered at great length at the time, is you being a closed mind partisan hack.
> ...




This is a good example of how you just dismiss valid challenges to fact, by just saying "facts".


You present teh claims of the "professional inspectors" as though they are facts.

A claim from someone is not a fact. Especially when they have motive to lie.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> A claim from someone is not a fact. Especially when they have motive to lie.


Are you saying Dr Hans Blix was lying when he said  in February 2003 that with the proactive cooperation from SH his estimate of completing the peaceful disarmament of Iraq would be about three months?

Are you saying you have evidence that SH was not proactively cooperating in February 2003?

What are you saying exactly?


Dyou write this:


Correll said:


> I don't see how any team of outsiders can find something in a nation, if the national government wants to hide it.



But what if the national government is surrounded by a quarter of a million of angry American and British soldiers armed to the teeth  ready to invade if the Dictator  tries to hide something.

And did you write all of this:




Correll said:


> You are raving. I did not believe that the "peaceful disarmament" was working.





Correll said:


> I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.
> 
> I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.





Correll said:


> A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.


Have you changed your opinion since now you know that the other 13 members on the United Nations Security Council we’re credible, we’re right, to allow the peaceful disarmament of Iraq that was in progress finish?


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > A claim from someone is not a fact. Especially when they have motive to lie.
> ...




1. I meant that a claim is not a fact. You cite Authorities as though their Authorities means that their words define reality. They do not. 


2. I certainly did not consider him credible. I think him and the other inspectors would have said anything to avoid a war. THey were motivated by a strong desire for peace and that made them not credible. 

3. Yes, I did.  What of it?


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.
> ...




1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible. 

2. The peaceful process was not working. It could never have  been "finished".

3. Have  you heard the phrase, "humans are an irrational, pattern seeking animial"?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.



Do you now know that the other 13 members on the UNSC were “right” to have rejected warmongering and favored allowing the peaceful disarmament of Iraq to be finished.

What do you mean peaceful disarmament of Iraq couild not be finished


Correll said:


> 2. The peaceful process was not working. It could never have been "finished".



It would be ‘finished’ when Blix and El Baradai says it is finished.

What facts do you have to back up you claim that UN Weapons inspections could never be finished?


----------



## Correll (May 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.
> ...




It would have been finished when they found the wmds, or documentation that they were destroyed.

Saddam insanely destroyed the wmds, without documenting it. 


Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at. 


Your claim that the process would be successful, when they state it is successfully, is again, you thinking that these Authorities' words, define reality. 


That you think that is a "fact" is you demonstrating your mental issues.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at.



That has got to be one of the stupidest warmonger arguments ever in the history of the world.

You must be the only warmonger in the entire world   Making that absurd point..

We killed 500,000 and spent $5 Trillion on the
very same fools errand that you are now claiming the 1441 inspectors were on..

Most warmongers created and clung to one early  myth when it was becoming clear to the sane people that the WMD did not exist in Iraq because Bush lied.

That myth went like this. Saddam had WMD But right before the invasion he moved them all to Syria or put them on ships that are circling at sea somewhere.

Thats dumb but not as dumb as the Iraq myth you just concocted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> The War on Terror started with them attacking US.




The Iraqis did not attack us.  Saddam Hussein did not attack us.  Lincoln did not attack the South. he responded to an attack by the South. You are very confused about who  attacked whom.


So your response was to commit a massive terrorist attack on innocent Iraqi people “for their own good” with prettied up and sugar coated terrorism using  phrases such as ‘collateral damage’ and “Operation Iraqi Freedom “



Correll said:


> You so ignorant you never heard of collateral damage?




You killed Shams Amin, a young waitress working in a restaurant  in Baghdad. She was no threat to you  but you had the sudden urge to do this:

Start a war by bombing the piss out of Bagdad and invading her predominantly Muslim country with a couple hundred thousand heavily armed  soldiers from a predominately Christian culture.in order to break ground in the nation  building project for ca new American Century to create a ...functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East....  



Correll said:


> A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.




what separates you from OBL? 

You attacked innocent civilians not as a matter of  National self defense nor in any way in a response to an immediate threat or ongoing threat.

You killed Shams Amin you’ve said because you were angry..... and I take it that your underlying message is don’t fuck around with white cultural Christians men  when they get angry.


Some got so damned angry they recently launch an assault on America’s Democratic process  to try to keep their loser POTUS in power.


----------



## CremeBrulee (May 26, 2021)

Is Saddam Hussein's regime in charge of Iraq?  Does Iraq pose a real or perceived threat to the US? The answered to both of those questions is no.  I stand by that decision.


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at.
> ...




The inspectors were to find the wmds, or documentation that they had been destroyed.


Saddam destroyed them, without documenting the fact. 


Neither the wmds, nor the documentation that the inspectors needed to be successful, existed. 


That is my point. I agree that no one else is making it. I am the only one to think it though clearly. 


Nothing in your post, addressed my point, let alone challenged it. 


That bit where you whine about the expense of the war? That was just you making an emotional argument, because you don't have a rational one to make.


That is demagoguery, of the type that you lefties like to whine about if Trump does it.  Just fyi.


Have you ever heard the phrase, "humans are an irrational pattern seeking animal"?


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The War on Terror started with them attacking US.
> ...




1. My point about the War on Terror starting with them attack US, stands. You did not address it.


2. Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense. 

The rest of your post is meaningless demagoguery. Dismissed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.



Its a War of ideas where in your case you approve  enforcing your idea on other nations by military force. With your lack of morality it is required and permissible in your fascist mind to kill innocent civilians as long as you call it collateral damage.

War of ideas used to be a phrase that you win without killing and maiming one single human being in the process. You are endorsing killing and maiming and displacing millions of mostly Muslims to force your idea onto them. 

Not a very Christian or American IDEA if you ask me. But I don’t know that much about what it means to be a cultural Christian American such as you have claimed to be. I’m just an American who would never want  our military to strike a nation or any of its people that was not an immediate threat to our American way of life.

That’s how we win the War of IDEAS . Not becoming a terror sponsor as you expect us to be just because we are the biggest and baddest dog in the fight.  We must keep ourselves retrained unless the THREAT is REAL.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> The War on Terror started with them attacking US.



Who are you saying “them” was? We are talking about why start a war with Iraq when they had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Why didn’t you call for regime change in Pakistan. Or are least Nuke their Nukes since collateral damage does not appear to matter or bother you in your militarily enforced War of ideas?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> The inspectors were to find the wmds, or documentation that they had been destroyed.


Thats not a fact. It was not limited to those two choices. You’re just making shit up.

They were there to verify that Iraq no longer had  the capability and facilities to produce nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. They were there to verify and confirm for the United Nations Security Council that Iraq did not possess biological or chemical weapons.

During the first 100 days weapons inspectors focused on the SUNNI triangle in the north where is most likely that if any violations were occurring it would be there.

You know, we’re Rumsfeld  said they were;

STEPHANOPOULOS: _s it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?_​
​
_Rumsfeld’s Revisionist History: ‘We Know Where The WMD Suspect Sites Are’_​​
_RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces — the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat._​

_The weapons inspectors focused on the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat - Like Rummy said. He’s not completing the searches in the SHIA south because they were not geared up for it yet in March 2003.

South is where they chemical weapons were unilateral laterally destroyed right after the first gulf  war in burn pits.

I realize you don’t like to contemplate facts but Dr. Hans Blix stated at the time that they were gearing up to move to the southern Iraq and try to use some technology to ascertain the quantities and weapons that were unilaterally destroyed._

_Blix estimated this would take another few months.

They were also gearing up at the time that Bush decided to put a halt to inspections to bring in U2 planes and underground penetrating radar to complete the verification that a Iraq was indeed disarmed.  

About a third of Americans including yourself dud not have the patience to wait a few months to get the scientific answer.

Your attempt to lie about what was going on in Iraq with the UN and weapons inspectors is a nice try to assuage your non guilt but you are  being called on it. Your  manufactured lies now do not wash the black stain off your heart and on your conscience for getting half a million people killed and spending 5 trillion of US taxpayer dollars on the absolutely totally needless and unnecessary use of massive overwhelming military force against a very weak defenseless nation._


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.
> ...




Your desire to never use our military except against nations that are an immediate threat to our American way of life, would just let all of our enemies know that they would have complete freedom of action to target our allies, other nations, and our interests, and work together on long term plans to destroy us, 


as long as they did not pose an immediate threat to US, until they were ready to.



The rest of your post was just you explaining in a very emotional fashion that you disagree with me, without making any real challenge to my point, so it stands. 


Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The War on Terror started with them attacking US.
> ...




Oh, you missed teh part where the discussion wandered over to larger questions? 

Jeez, I guess that can happen when you cut the vast majority of what the other person says from every post.


YOu were part of that process too. Didn't bother you, till you wanted an excuse to dodge a point. 


My point stands. You position of "if we just leave them alone", was proven false. Or wrong.

If I was an asshole, I would accuse you of LYING, just because you are, imo, WRONG, on a matter of "fact".


----------



## surada (May 26, 2021)

CremeBrulee said:


> Is Saddam Hussein's regime in charge of Iraq?  Does Iraq pose a real or perceived threat to the US? The answered to both of those questions is no.  I stand by that decision.



Bibi demanded that Saddam be overthrow in 1996 in Clean Break Strategy.. The PNAC promoted that in their letter to Clinton in 1998.


----------



## surada (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You can't force democracy on Muslims.. That's the point. What sort of ugly American thinks he can reform their religon, culture, government and heritage?

Really.. Its a vile notion and a very, very arrogant one. The vvast majjorit of Muslims aren't terrorists, but you can keep working at it until they are.


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

surada said:


> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> > Is Saddam Hussein's regime in charge of Iraq?  Does Iraq pose a real or perceived threat to the US? The answered to both of those questions is no.  I stand by that decision.
> ...




And...? 


I mean, seriously, wtf is wrong with you? Do you have brain damage?


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



My understanding is that Iraq is a functioning democracy right now, so, it looks like you CAN force democracy on muslims, if you use enough force. 

I can see how that would seem arrogant. 


What is your plan for dealing with muslim terorrism?


----------



## surada (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > CremeBrulee said:
> ...



You don't know about the American model in Saudi Arabia.. Why it was successful  and Britain was not. Get off your high horse and trying to dictate to the Arab world.


----------



## surada (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Muslims deal with Muslim terrorists.. because Muslim terrorists kill other Muslims. Butt out.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> My point stands. You position of "if we just leave them alone", was proven false. Or wrong.



I don’t have a position of "if we just leave them alone" regarding real terrorists that threaten us.

I just do not believe in killing hundreds of thousands  to start a nation building project in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Thats your response. It was wrong about everything.

Will you explain what you think I got wrong so I can respond to your lies sandcastle lack of c facts  accordingly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> What is your plan for dealing with muslim terorrism?


But you are a liar. They were not terrorists when you decided to kill half a million of them to start a Judeo -Christianity based nation building project on their sovereign land in Iraq.


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




"American model"? We didn't set up Saudi Arabia. 

What are you even talking about?


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > My point stands. You position of "if we just leave them alone", was proven false. Or wrong.
> ...




We were leaving them alone when we were attacked out of the blue. 

And, oh my god, can you stop with the emtional appeal bullshit. YES WAR SUCKS. You whining about it, is boring.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> it looks like you CAN force democracy on muslims, if you use enough force.



What gave you the moral authority to abort half a millions lives to force democracy on the people of Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> We were leaving them alone when we were attacked out of the blue.



There regime and the people in Iraq had nothing to do with attacking us out of the blue. 

Why do you keep lying that Iraq attacked us?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> And, oh my god, can you stop with the emtional appeal bullshit. YES WAR SUCKS. You whining about it, is boring.



We were not attacked by or threatened in any way by Iraq in March 2003, so why did you beat the drums to start a war there in March 2003 if you know War sucks. You make no sense.


----------



## irosie91 (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And, oh my god, can you stop with the emtional appeal bullshit. YES WAR SUCKS. You whining about it, is boring.
> ...


we were not actually threatened by nazi germany either.    Interestingly --the pro germany propaganda that I read as a child way back in the 50s emphasized that "fact"


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What is your plan for dealing with muslim terorrism?
> ...




1.  They were terrorists.

2. I did not decide to kill a half million them. THat is you lying.

3. THe nation was always planned to be Muslm. THat is you lying more.

4. Oh, now the libtard believes in sovereignty. How cute. 

5. You are a faggot.


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > it looks like you CAN force democracy on muslims, if you use enough force.
> ...




Saddam's failure to fulfil his obligations under the ceasefire agreement.


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > We were leaving them alone when we were attacked out of the blue.
> ...




Your inability to follow the thread of the conversation, might be helped if you did not cut the majority of everything I post.


----------



## Correll (May 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And, oh my god, can you stop with the emtional appeal bullshit. YES WAR SUCKS. You whining about it, is boring.
> ...




I explained why I supported the war. We have discussed it at length. That you disagree, is not a reason to ask the question again. 


Are you pretending that you forgot all those other times? Or is this more of that thing, where you are unable to understand that other people disagree with you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> I explained why I supported the war.


I understand you supported killing innocent Iraqis for this purpise


To create


Correll said:


> A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.



But your support of that unprepared undermanned military mission does not explain why you decided to kill innocent civilians in a nation that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on US soil in September 2001 and was no threat to any nation including our own when Bush started a war.

Why did  you support starting a war against a non-existent threat? That’s what you cant answer.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. They were terrorists.



You decided it was necessary to kill Iraqis (it turned out to be half a million) because you determined they were terrorists?  What evidence did you have that convinced you that Iraqis were terrorists.


----------



## irosie91 (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. They were terrorists.
> ...


The Iraq situation was a little complex and a problem created by the RULERS.  
Saddaam was a vicious Baathist. ---which, at that time, made him a puppet of 
Russia.    The people of Iraq were no more criminal than the average german 
child------just manipulated


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> The Iraq situation was a little complex and a problem created by the RULERS.


There was nothing complicated or complex about  Iraq in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors in there on the ground.

At the time six out of ten Americans instinctively understood the simplicity and correctness of letting the inspectors finish the job of disarming Iraq peacefully instead of disarming Iraq by killing people during a fucking stupid and idiot Christian cultured nation’s invasion of a Muslim nation.

Specifically when the lying warmongers were warned in advance that going in *unprepared* for the aftermath of regime change would be catastrophic and very costly.

It was so fucking simple even Sleepy Joe had it figured out before the invasion was launched.

Wiser were were never said than these on letting inspectors continue a few more months .... and not listened to by the lying warmongers.

Senator Joe Biden *3: So the question, for me, is, Will the additional time given increase the risk beyond the support we will get by allowing more time?​
Senator Joe Biden *3: 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?​​Senator Joe Biden *3:  But the question is, Does his failure to cooperate increase the risk in a way that outweighs the risk of going with fewer people, less support when we go?​​Senator Joe Biden *3: Now, I realize that maintaining the deployment of a hundred-plus-thousand forces in the region is costly. I would just raise, for--as a question to be considered--*it is a heck of a lot more costly to deploy those forces with fewer people helping us, and less commitment to mop up after it is over. *​​Senator Joe Biden *3:* 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.*​​U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq​​Senator Biden: Having others with us increases our chance of success. *And by success, I mean not just taking down Saddam. That is not the measure of success. The measure of success is, if we take him down, if need be, we gather up and destroy the weapons of mass *destruction, and we are assured that there is a government in place that is not likely to reconstitute the menace and threat. ​
*That is a gigantic undertaking that exceeds merely the military operation*.

Senator Biden: And it also, if we have others with us, decreases the risk and lowers the cost, and it invests others in the *complicated matter of the day after, or, more appropriately, in my view, the decade after.* And it does not make us a target of every terrorist and malcontent in the world if we are not doing this alone. It matters. It matters, in terms of our naked self-interest.​


----------



## surada (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



When the American oilmen went to Arabia they had a totally different approach than the Brits in Iran and Iraq. They exploited the OIL not the people. They also kept the US government at arm's length.


----------



## surada (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraq situation was a little complex and a problem created by the RULERS.
> ...



The whole reason for the invasion of Iraq was a lie.. The UK started Operaton Mass Appeal in 1997-1998 to sell the war to the world with non-stop demonization.

Sir Derek Plumbly was in charge. The purpose was to satisfy Israel because Bibi's Clean Break Strategy  of 1996 demanded the overthrow of Saddam.

Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions BEFORE the invasion. Iraq was NO threat to the neighbors or the US.


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I explained why I supported the war.
> ...




But it does explain it. Clearly. ALL the answer you need is in that portion of my post you cut and pasted.

BUT, by repeating the question over and over again, you get to create the illusion that it is not an answer. 

AND you get to play your APPEAL TO EMOTION logical fallacy of whining about the human cost of war. 

You are a dishonest partisan hack. And you are an asshole about it.


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. They were terrorists.
> ...



Why? So you can pretend to disprove it, and thus claim that I am lying about my motive in the past?


Have you realized that cause and effect only moves FORWARD yet?


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Not likes to focus on a small complexity, and then pretend that that existing means that another issue raised, was a lie.


----------



## surada (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Prince Bandar was the Saudi Ambassador to the US.. He was also a Bush classmate and loaned him the money for his total fuck up with Arbusto.

Bandar tried to talk Bush out of the invasion repeatedly, warning him of the consequences. Bush margialized Bandar and Bandar was recalled to Arabia.

Bandar's father was Sultan Bin Abdulaziz.. Did you know him? Good guy .. very westernized, excellent English and Pro-American all the way.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. They were terrorists.


You claim the Iraqis were terrorists in March 2003.

So you were asked for evidence to back your claim:




NotfooledbyW said:


> What evidence did you have that convinced you that Iraqis were terrorists.




All we get is excuses from you putting the blame on me because you don’t have evidence for any of your nonsensical arguments in defense of lie-based warmongering in March 2003.





Correll said:


> Why? So you can pretend to disprove it,



That’s what you do when asked for evidence if your false claims and phony arguments.

Broad-brushing the Iraqi people as terrorists is absurd. You should post the definition of ignorance as your evidence. That’s the most factual explanation for what a warmonger is doing here.


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




What does that have to do with anything that was being discussed in the thread?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> But it does explain it. Clearly. ALL the answer you need is in that portion of my post you cut and pasted.



No. You have explained that nation building would push back on Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and that would somehow someday reduce the threat from Islamic  terrorists at some point in the future..

What was asked of you is this:


NotfooledbyW said:


> Why did you support starting a war against a non-existent threat? That’s what you cant answer.




Why? Why Correll did you demand that your “nation building” project in Iraq have a “must start” date of March 17, 2003 in the absence of any kind of threat to our national security at that time.

That’s the relevant question for you because you must have known at the time that the US military was not built to put a nation together after breaking it. You had to know that Bush did not have a civilian-centric plan or people to secure the innocent Iraqi people once the police and army and civic institutions in Iraq were obliterated.


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. They were terrorists.
> ...




The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.  

Now you will dismiss or deny that, and use your disagreement as a reason to pretend that my motive was not my motive, in the past. 


Which of course, is not how time works.


You are just a partisan hack, trying to spin up a mountain out of dead horse, so that you have an excuse to smear your enemies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.



BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? Are you calling the US Military Liars. 

Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida, says Pentagon study​
Elana Schor
Wed 12 Mar 2008 20.35 EDT

A US military study officially acknowledged for the first time yesterday that Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida, undercutting the Bush administration's central case for war with Iraq.
The Pentagon study based on more than 600,000 documents recovered after US and UK troops toppled Hussein in 2003, discovered "no 'smoking gun' (ie, direct connection) between Saddam's Iraqand al-Qaida", its authors wrote.
George Bush and his senior aides have made numerous attempts to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terror in their justification for waging war against Iraq.


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.
> ...




That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.

And even then, I would be suspicious of the weasel word, "direct". 

Like I care if support goes though a middle man. lol!!!


You really are a monkey just throwing shit at a wall, aren't you?


Have you ever heard of the phrase, "humans are an irrational pattern seeking animal?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.



So are you therefore confessing that you understand that Bush was lying when they cited Saddam Hussain’s ties to Al-Qaeda as one of the justifications for starting a war on March 17, 2003 to beat this summer heat and have Saddam Hussein removed from power prior to the 2004 election year.

Now that we have Al-Qaeda out of the way what terrorist organizations are you referring to where is Saddam Hussein was plotting an attack on western civilization during the month of March 2003.

In  all the records and documents and news reports and White House communications I have never heard that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorist that were planning an attack on America or any of our allies. So what do you have that nobody else in the entire world has been able to uncover?

And what did the Pentagon study miss when they of course focused on Al-Qaeda they surely should’ve run across an organization by any other name was Donna saying was tied to. Do you think they did but it’s part of the deep state lie to help  the war mongering effort.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.



The liar in chief's Administration said it to get you warmongers all hopped up for war and angry so you would not  question why it had to be done on March 17, 2003

''There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq,'' former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002


my question to you is about the timing. What was the threat reheated to international terrorists that forced the March 17 2003 decision to invade.


I know if no threat that fueled Bush’s decision that you supported.

Biden was not aware of any threat abd he wanted to take Saddam out.
​Senator Joe Biden *3: 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.​
He wanted to take Saddam out too if he quit cooperating with inspectors or if he was hiding WMD.

Buden didn’t hear There was a immediate threat linke to terrorists he was acting with directly or indirectly.

So you are lying - you’ve have no evidence Saddam was linked in any way during March  2003 to any terrorist plots to attack western civilization that you can point to.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.





When you are saying "at that time" do you mean the Month of March 2003 when Bush decided it was necessary to invade? Just want to be clear.


----------



## irosie91 (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraq situation was a little complex and a problem created by the RULERS.
> ...


Ok----I read it-------so what does it actually SAY? -------nuthin'.     As to  ".....assured that there is 
a government in place that is not likely to reconsittute the menace and threat......"  *FUGIT ABOUT IT  ----Iraq is a shiite shit majoirity nation and will ---left alone, be a BAATHIST \
SLIME puppet of Iran and Russia*


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.
> ...



I stopped reading there. That is too much even for you. We were discussing my point that the Iraqis Government supported terrorism. 

That you jumped from that to proclaiming a "confession" from me, is you being a lying asshole. 


This whole thread is nothing but you trying to make a mountain out of the molehill of overlap between Bush and Trump supporters, despite Trump saying Bush lied. 


You are pathetic. AND you don't care about lying into war. You give Lincoln a pass, because you support his war aims. 


Probably do the same for Wilson, though you refused to take the bait there. 


DITTO FDR.


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.
> ...




I made a general statement that they supported terrorists. 

It would make sense for you to cite this specific accusation and to ask me, if that was what I meant, or to demand that I be more specific so you could attack my claim. 

Not that that would change the fact that I believed it back then, and thus it was part of my analysis, EVEN IF IT WAS WRONG.

That place you get, retarded, is where you argue against my reasoning, decades after the fact, AND THEN ONCE YOU TO YOUR SATISFACTION, challenge it, you declare that is was not valid, in your opinion and then call me a liar for saying it.


NONE OF THAT IS RATIONAL. That is not logical or even sane. 


You are insane, and on top of that, you build up asshole behavior, based on your insanity.


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.
> ...




nope. A more general time. Think post First Persian Gulf War, forward.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.




9/21/01Bush briefed by intel community that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. *[Date the public knew: 11/22/05]*


Oct 2001Rumsfeld sets up own intelligence unit to look for Iraqi links to terrorism. *[Date the public knew: 10/24/04]*


Feb 2002






DIA intelligence summary notes that Libi’s “confession” lacks details and suggests that he is most likely telling interrogators what he thinks will “retain their interest.” Also states: “Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.” *[Date the public knew: 10/26/05]*


3/22/02Downing Street memo: “US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing…We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq…Regime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.” *[Date the public knew: 9/18/04]*


3/25/02Downing Street memo: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with Al Qaida…In the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran or North Korea as to justify action.” [*Date the public knew: 9/18/04]*


May 2002





Primary corroborator of Curveball’s claims that Iraq has mobile weapons labs is judged a liar and Chalabi plant by DIA. A fabricator warning is posted in US intelligence databases. *[Date the public knew: 3/28/04]*


June 2002Iraq bombing begins. Military will fly 21,736 sorties and attack 349 targets between now and the start of the war.


9/7/02Bush claims a new UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no such report.


9/26/02Classified DIA assessment of Iraq’s chemical weapons concludes there is “no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.” *[Date the public knew: 5/30/03]*
 Dubya missed that one:

9/26/02In a Rose Garden speech, Bush says: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.”


*Did these comments tying Iraq to Al Qaeda make you believe that the Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time? Or did you conduct your own investigation and are now willing to share?*

''There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq,'' former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002



9/25/02“You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”—Bush


12/9/01Cheney on _Meet the Press_: “Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists.” Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he’ll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.


9/25/02Citing Libi intel, Rice says: “High-ranking detainees have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.”


9/27/02Rumsfeld calls link between Iraq and Al Qaeda “accurate and not debatable.”


9/28/02Bush’s address to nation: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.”


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.
> ...




Irrelevant spam.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.



You made a specific accusation that was used to justify killing half a million Iraqis as an 'honest mistake'  so I asked for evidence to back up your claim that while Saddam Hussein was cooperating with UNSC inspectors from November 2002 through March 17 2003 Saddam Hussein was supporting 'terrorism at that time'.

Your response was the typical dodge but in it you implied that you have 'evidence' but would not provide it because you have some way of know that I would "pretend" to disprove it. So to make your conspiracy theory work indefinitely to hide the fact that you don't really have any evidence, you lied that you had evidence.



Correll said:


> Why? So you can pretend to disprove it,



So now you dropped your accusation against "the government" of Iraq and just want to say that you supported killing half a million Iraqis on the basis of a general statement that in general the Iraqi people supported terrorists in general while UNMOVIC's 200 inspectors were moving freely about Iraq working in public with all sorts of Iraqi people without harm.




Correll said:


> I made a general statement that they supported terrorists.



So when you wrote "The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time."  it was based on nothing rather specific about what the Bush regime told you, It was based on nothing else that you can back up with evidence or any credible documentation that you could share.  So you were not aware of any active threat or even planning by terrorist groups linked in any way to Saddam Hussein prior to March 17 2003.


What drove you to support invasion when there was no specific threat from Iraq and international terrorist groups during the week preceding March 17, 2003?

Why did it have to happen right there on that date? Why could you not personally give the inspectors more time.  As Senator Joe Biden so widely advised.

If you have no logic or reasons behind your hawkish rank and file blind trust on the grave matter of starting a preemptive war of aggression on a weak nation to Bush Rumsfeld Rice Powell Cheney and Ahmad Chalabi, just admit it. You are a non-thinking unprincipled loyalist to the Republican Party no matter what they do.


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.
> ...



No, you didn't. You cherry picked one terrorist group and posted a claim that Iraq did NOT "directly" support them, and then pretended that that proved that I was wrong, or lying, I forget which one, and then built a fantasy on top of that and was an asshole about it. 


You are insane. Even if you were able to "prove" today, somehow that Iraq, under Saddam never supported any terrorists, that would only prove that I was mistaken about it back then. 

It would not change anything.


That you think it would, is you being bat shit crazy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> Irrelevant spam



Its direct quotes from the people that lied to you. There was no honest mistake.


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant spam
> ...




Have you ever heard of the phrase, "humans are an irrational, pattern seeking animal."?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> Irrelevant spam



Why did you state that Iraq’s regime was supporting terrorists after 1441?


----------



## Correll (May 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant spam
> ...




i was thinking of the way they gave money to the families of suicide bombers. 

Took you long enough to ask. 

You made yourself look silly with your guesses and knee jerk assumptions. 


Learn anything here?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> i was thinking of the way they gave money to the families of suicide bombers.



When?

You said the Iraqi government was supporting terrorists “at that time” ..   which was March 2003.

I’ll ask again do you have evidence that Iraq was giving money to terrorists families of suicide bombers  after 1441?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> i was thinking of the way they gave money to the families of suicide bombers.





That was apparently not considered a reason for regime change for the Bush Administration..


U.S. ‘ALLY’ PAYS BOMBERS – SAUDIS JUST LIKE SADDAM​By Niles Lathem
April 11, 2002 | 4:00am


WASHINGTON – Saudi Arabia has joined Saddam Hussein in giving “blood money” to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers – a policy that could complicate relations between America and one of its principal Arab allies.
A statement on the Web site run by the Saudi Embassy in Washington said the kingdom has paid a total of $33 million to Palestinians for various uses, including cash payments to educate the children of “martyrs,” since October 2000.
The Saudis give $5,333 to each martyr’s family and $4,000 to each Palestinian who is wounded battling Israeli forces.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> What is your plan for dealing with muslim terorrism?



I replied referencing a time. *.......to start a Judeo -Christianity based nation building project on their sovereign land in Iraq.   That was clearly after 1441,*


NotfooledbyW said:


> But you are a liar. They were not terrorists when you decided to kill half a million of them to start a Judeo -Christianity based nation building project on their sovereign land in Iraq.


*And again I , was referring to a timeframe after 1441*


NotfooledbyW said:


> We were not attacked by or threatened in any way by Iraq in March 2003, so why did you beat the drums to start a war there in March 2003 if you know War sucks. You make no sense.


You did not clarify that you were talking about forever......


Correll said:


> 1. They were terrorists


Here I asked for evidence.


NotfooledbyW said:


> You decided it was necessary to kill Iraqis (it turned out to be half a million) because you determined they were terrorists? What evidence did you have that convinced you that Iraqis were terrorists.


You lied to pretend that you had evidence.  It it was payments to the families of suicide bombers why didn't you present some evidence here:


Correll said:


> Why? So you can pretend



Here you specifically said "at that time" you did not clarify that you were changing the timeframe in the conversation  .... *And again I , was referring to a timeframe after 1441*



Correll said:


> The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.



So I asked for clarification.


NotfooledbyW said:


> When you are saying "at that time" do you mean the Month of March 2003 when Bush decided it was necessary to invade? Just want to be clear.



You still didn't object to the timeframe being discussed. *And again I , was referring to a timeframe after 1441*


Correll said:


> We were discussing my point that the Iraqis Government supported terrorism



Here you only clarified that your statement was not based on facts or evidence.   Just a general statement ..... still talking about * a timeframe after 1441*


Correll said:


> I made a general statement that they supported terrorists.





NotfooledbyW said:


> Why did you state that Iraq’s regime was supporting terrorists after 1441?



You finally claimed you were talking about payments to suicide bombers.


Correll said:


> i was thinking of the way they gave money to the families of suicide bombers.





NotfooledbyW said:


> You said the Iraqi government was supporting terrorists “at that time” .. which was March 2003.




Then you added your that you were not talking about what Saddam did after 1441 although that was the understanding of what the discussion was from the beginning to this point.


Correll said:


> nope. A more general time. Think post First Persian Gulf War, forward.





Do you see the FACT that you lied? Your posts never indicated that you were talking 1991 though November 2002 when 1441 was approved.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> i was thinking of the way they gave money to the families of suicide bombers.


Is this a guy in the White House a terrorist too. 



1/11/03*






Bush tells Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar* that he plans to go to war two days before he tells Secretary Powell. *[Date the public knew: 4/18/04]*


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 27, 2021)

You asked for my plan how I would deal with the real terrorists in March 2003 and I gave you a better plan than yours which was to invade Iraq to nation build with an army that was not equipped or prepared  to nation build. You are the one that had no plan to deal with real terrorists. Real terrorists were not in Iraq or working with the Iraqi regime.



NotfooledbyW said:


> In March 2003 the plan was let the inspectors deal with SH and his WMD issue who had nothing to do with the 09/11/01 attacks. Finish the job in Afghanistan and pursue OBL in Pakistan while cleaning out the real terrorists hiding in the no man’s land on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
> 
> And Don’t spend $5 trillion and 250,000 troops and most of our intelligence assets in Iraq that didn’t have any WMD. That’s was the plan.



Six out of ten Americans agreed with letting the inspections continue. You say you spoke for America demanding the inspections needed to end on March 17 2003 for no reason whatsoever regarding an increase in the threat from Iraq.

How do figure you spoke for America?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


NotfooledbyW said:


> 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?





Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## Correll (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > i was thinking of the way they gave money to the families of suicide bombers.
> ...




Did I say "at the time" or did you add that? DOesn't matter. That was my motive at the time. YOu can't change that by rehashing it, now.


The most you could do, is possibly prove that I was wrong about that. 

And if so, so what? It doesn't change the fact that I believed it then?


That you think that you can change the past with arguments NOW, is literally insane of you.


Liberalism, really is a mental disorder.


----------



## Correll (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > i was thinking of the way they gave money to the families of suicide bombers.
> ...




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

See, that is just one of the ways you libtards are so dishonest. 

You were trying to make a point about MY support for a past policy, and when I answer you seriously and honestly, you pivot and make a "counter point" that the BUSH administration did  not care about that. 


That is you being dishonest, and you have been an asshole about it.


If you were not a dishonest and cowardly partisan hack, you would have conceded that point and moved on to some other point to make your case.



But, for some reason, you never do that. 


Probably because on some level, you realize that all your points are bullshit.


----------



## Correll (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What is your plan for dealing with muslim terorrism?
> ...




i see the "FACT" that  you are talking in circles and playing lots of gotcha word games. 


This was nearly twenty years ago and you are grilling me for details. You are just being an asshole now.


My point stands. My question stands.


What is your plan for dealing with Muslim Terrorism?


----------



## Correll (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > i was thinking of the way they gave money to the families of suicide bombers.
> ...




You are just throwing shit against a wall like a monkey.

Yes. Saudi Arabia is a shitty country TOO. 


Are you pretending to be so retarded that you forgot all the other shit we have been talking about with regard to Iraq, or even all the other shit we have NOT discussed that was discussed back then?/

There were dishonest assholes then who said, "well if support of terrorism is why, then why not saudi arabia"


The reasons were discussed at length then. You are being an asshole, pretending to not know them. 


This is the type of dishonest shit someone does, when they know they have lost a debate.


Show some balls. Admit it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

Correll said:


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



no one loves whine more than a neocon warmonger.

I was asking for reasons that you supported the *timing of the decision by Bush to invade on March 17 2003.* I am asking you that because you have indicated that your support for invading was not related to the threat to our safety if SH was in possession of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

 We lived with the continued threat of SH in power in Iraq for 12 years - in MARCH 2003 that threat was lower than ever - and your plan for reducing the threat was years of nation building  away. Far into the distant future.

I’m trying to get you to grasp the serious flaw in your logic that the invasion was an honest mistake.

You have abandoned your concerns as an American citizen that military force should only be used as a response to an imminent or immediate or potential threat that must be immediately stopped.

You have accepted the use of massive military force (killing innocent civilians to achieve our national security goals) to reconstruct a sovereign nation and its society in our image.

With that new norm your “honest mistake” defense is more egregious than your other fictionalized “honest mistake” defenses. Such as saying the intelligence community made honest mistakes regarding WMD and ties to real terrorists.

It is a most egregious and fundamentally flawed  argument based on your acceptance of the timing of the March 17 2003 to start the Iraq nation building project without questioning the ineptitude as you do.

I’m not referring  to the peaceful disarming of Iraq questions with you at this point.

You have shown no remorse or anger at the fact that Bush launched the project you hold so dear before the military and civil service rebuilding plan and assets were prepared for such a major undertaking.

You supported breaking Iraq with no consideration of how it was going to be fixed. The human suffering was magnified many times over what it should have been - If Bush waited to start the nation building project until the aftermath of toppling the dictatorship was fully planned and resourced.

It was evil to put our military in an ad hoc nation building role by choosing the start  date for political election cycle reasons.

You cant tell me why Bush chose  March 2003
to start nation building Iraq.

Your argument that Americans ran out of patience is a lie.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

struth said:


> 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“.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

struth said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

Correll said:


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


Yes you did;


Correll said:


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





Correll said:


> 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 (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too
> ...


it never said anything about “if necessary


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

struth said:


> 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 (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > it never said anything about “if necessary
> ...


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


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

struth said:


> 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 (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > it authorized him to use it as ever he deemed necessary
> ...



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


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

struth said:


> 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.”*


struth said:


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


----------



## Correll (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > We HAD a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion.
> ...




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 (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, did you forget you were asking me about my reasons?
> ...



What the fuck 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 (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > This was nearly twenty years ago and you are grilling me for details.
> ...




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 (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Saudi Arabia is a shitty country TOO.
> ...




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 (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too
> ...




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 fuck 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 (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




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 (May 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Did I say "at the time" or did you add that?
> ...




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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> . 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:


Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




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 (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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.


----------



## Correll (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > We had tried covert means though out the entire Bill Clinton Administrations.
> ...




Read it somewhere. It's been over twenty years. Do you know what year it is?


----------



## Correll (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...




Wars have human cost. ALL of them. We considered that at the time, before the invasion.

Your harping on it, is pointless and stupid, at best.

At worst it is dishonest and underhanded.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> I think that Saddam was too well entrenched to be overthrown that way.



Did you catch it struth ? You got a nation builder war monger cultural Christian Trump supporter rejecting your special ops preference over massive military force.


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I think that Saddam was too well entrenched to be overthrown that way.
> ...


cool...maybe he’s right. 

either way...we met the goal of Clinton and Xiden and liberated Iraq from your pal Saddam


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> Wars have human cost. ALL of them. We considered that at the time, before the invasion.



Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that  was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough. 

But because you supported going in solely to nation build absolutely unconcerned about a real and immediate threat to us AT THAT TIME and now boast that you knowingly considered killing innocent civilians in Iraq to achieve a fucking “notion” of safety that our kids ‘might’ have when they run the world makes you irredeemable as a moral human being and decent citizen of the world.

You are a black stain on America and on the religion of Christianity as well.

We should engage in war ONLY to (1) defend ourselves  from a real and immediate threat. (2) to stop active ongoing or looming genocide when the world community recognizes that more lives will be saved than the action of war will cause.

You considered it and supported killing innocent civilians in Iraq when neither of those criteria were met. Because you were angry and impatient.

That is what is wrong with you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> either way...we met the goal of Clinton and Xiden and liberated Iraq from your pal Saddam


No, that is a lie. Both Clintons and Senator Biden wanted the inspectors to stay in Iraq and finish the job. Their goal was to peacefully disarm IRAQ if possible and only to wage war against Iraq if necessary. Exactly the way Bush said it before he lied.


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > either way...we met the goal of Clinton and Xiden and liberated Iraq from your pal Saddam
> ...


haha Clinton signed the Iraq Liberatiom Act and Xiden voted for it...Xiden then voted to authorize Bush to use the military as he deemed necessary...what they say after the fact is pointless.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> haha Clinton signed the Iraq Liberatiom Act and Xiden voted for it...Xiden then voted to authorize Bush to use the military as he deemed necessary...what they say after the fact is pointless.



When Biden was the three years old he probably believed in the Easter Bunny and Babies were delivered by storks.   So years later when he says That’s not real you say it’s pointless, only the earlier concept applies.

You are absurd.

Biden said this in February 2003 regarding the situation at the time:

Biden was for more time for the inspectors. No need


Senator Joe Biden: .....If we give more time, will that markedly increase the  support we get from the rest of the world, and weigh that against the risks? So the question, for me, is, Will the additional time given increase the risk beyond the support we will get by allowing more time?​
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,​
Now, again, that is a tough call. But I am going to front-end guess it. 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.*​


----------



## Correll (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I think that Saddam was too well entrenched to be overthrown that way.
> ...




YOu are insane if you think this will bother him. So some guy disagrees with him about a historical matter. 


And only you cares about my race or my religious background. Because you are a racist and a religious bigot.


----------



## Correll (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Not, doesn't seen to understand that this is the past, AND CAN'T BE CHANGED. 


He really thinks that he can retroactively prove that our motivations for going into Iraq were EVUL, after the fact, and thus, something.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not, doesn't seen to understand that this is the past, AND CAN'T BE CHANGED.



FUTURE generations need to know that only 4 of 10 Americans were the angry Islamophobic Christian culture Americans that got their big costly deadly unnecessary war only because the President of the United States A REPUBLICAN lied.

White washers like you need to be exposed so it never happens again.


----------



## Correll (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Wars have human cost. ALL of them. We considered that at the time, before the invasion.
> ...





1. Starting a war with a nation that is not a threat to us is not depraved. Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole. 

2. Who said I was unconcerned about the human cost? Just because I am not wallowing in it, twenty years after the fact, like you are, does not mean I did not consider it at the time. YOu are an asshole for saying that. 

3. AH, an actual statement of underlying principle, instead of you talking in circles like a crazy man. How interesting. Why not start a thread on that, instead of this stupid shit of proving ill motive, twenty years after the fact?

4. My rules for what constitutes a Just War are different than yours. I know that that is difficult for you to grasp. Nay, impossible. But that is because you have a completely closed mind. 

5. I was not angry or impatient. 

6. You are the one fucked in the head here, who does not even understand how linear time works. And you are an asshole.


----------



## Correll (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Not, doesn't seen to understand that this is the past, AND CAN'T BE CHANGED.
> ...




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.


AND if you make it about the lie, then when people are sure, oh so sure about their information and their logic, then the lesson about getting it wrong, will not be applied.


YOU, in your support of partisan advantage, are LESSENING the usefulness of the Lesson of Iraq.


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


i have my suspensions he’s actually Baghdad Bob


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > haha Clinton signed the Iraq Liberatiom Act and Xiden voted for it...Xiden then voted to authorize Bush to use the military as he deemed necessary...what they say after the fact is pointless.
> ...


1) no one is childhood fantasy, the other politics 
2) and we gave it more time, and he authorized the president to use force whenever he deemed necessary


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 fucking around indefinitely, especially when the country you are fucking around with, just lost 3k citizens to a surprise attack. 



Do you forget how angry America was





Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

Correll said:


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



Your rules are fascist.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> 2) and we gave it more time, and he authorized the president to use force whenever he deemed necessary


You are a liar.


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 4. My rules for what constitutes a Just War are different than yours.
> ...


your old boss saddam was a fascist


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > 2) and we gave it more time, and he authorized the president to use force whenever he deemed necessary
> ...


haha dude you even posted the langague from the law that said just that!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> haha dude you even posted the langague from the law that said just that!


You are a liar. Show us the post.


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > haha dude you even posted the langague from the law that said just that!
> ...


hahaha 

Baghdad Bob is drunk


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> Baghdad Bob is drunk


I didn’t think Trump was a drinker.


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Baghdad Bob is drunk
> ...


yep you’re drunk 

apparently baghdad bob is hitting it hard since his boss got executed


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> apparently baghdad bob is hitting it hard since his boss got executed


Trump says Bush deliberately lied to invade Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

Correll said:


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


You did.


----------



## surada (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Read Clean Breakk Strategy.. There was NO reason to take out Saddam. NONE.


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > apparently baghdad bob is hitting it hard since his boss got executed
> ...


ok.  Trump was against the war unlike xiden and clinton


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Clinton and the dems disagreed 

also anyone that lived in the 90s


----------



## surada (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



It wasn't for oil and it wasn't because Saddam was a threat to the neighbors. The PNAC used Clean Break Strategy in their demand that Sadam be deposed and Syria be destabilize. read both.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> ok. Trump was against the war unlike xiden and clinton


NO. Biden and Clinton were publicly against the invasion unless the inspectors were allowed  to stay. So you are a liar. Trump was ok with it on Howard Stearn .


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > ok. Trump was against the war unlike xiden and clinton
> ...


stop lying they voted for the use of. force 

xiden voted for the over throw of saddam and bill signed it as well


----------



## surada (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



On the condition that the inspectors continue working.. and if neccessary.


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


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


----------



## surada (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



What are you talking about?


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


the law authorizing the use of force in iraq!  geez what do you think we have been discussing??


----------



## surada (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



So what? The reasons for the invasion were all cooked intelligence and lies.  Extreme stupiity in foreign policy.


----------



## struth (May 29, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


so you just lied...gotcha.  Xiden and Clinton voted for the authorization with no such conditions. 

they outlined the reasons....one being the over throw of saddam which xiden also voted for and billy signed into law


----------



## surada (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Right after he got the Hague Invasion Act.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 29, 2021)

struth said:


> 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 fal*l, 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?​​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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


there has been inspections for years


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

struth said:


> 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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 5. I was not angry or impatient.
> ...



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. 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 4. My rules for what constitutes a Just War are different than yours.
> ...




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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




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


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> My rules are more traditional





Correll said:


> 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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > My rules are more traditional
> ...




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?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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





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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Nice changing of the subject.
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




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 (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 4. My rules for what constitutes a Just War are different than yours.
> ...




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.


----------



## surada (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone when Bush invaded, but its what Bibi wanted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't link the two.



Therefore the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war does not belong in any traditional accepted concept of just war. Is that what you say?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> There is a difference between being impatient for a man to do something, and being impatient FOR war.


So explain how the difference applies if you think it matters?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> . My rules are more traditional.





Correll said:


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





Correll said:


> I don't link the two.





Correll said:


> 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?
> 
> ...





Correll said:


> Your rules are certainly not the traditional standard rules for Just War.



Don’t  worry I’m trying to make some sense out of cheapened language.  Not finding a rational or intelligent theme here.  For further review.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


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


Germany as the most powerful military in the world having no respect for international borders  was a direct threat to the United States when it invaded Poland.

Your ignorance on that FACT can be only understood if you did not perceive a fascist dictatorship with an advanced powerful military waging a war of aggression to expand its borders not to be a problem or threat to world peace, it had to mean you are on their side.

But it is a godawful parallel from you to the situation in Iraq with a beat up parts starved antiquated army - no Air Force - That had 200 UN Inspectors on the ground searching for the only possibility that Iraq could pose a threat, all backed up by being surrounded by a massive military force  that would attack if the dictator so was much as farted loudly into the Bagdad air.

Yiu are a fool for  exposing your ignorance on many points but that one rises to the top very quickly.

And you are so proud of your nonsense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


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



Do you have the official fascist rules for “just war” ? Please post them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


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



Why did you support Nation Building by military invasion knowing that our military was not prepared to nation build when Bush sent them in on March 17
2003?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.


when and what countries was that?


----------



## Correll (May 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Bush had his reasons for invading Iraq. They were many and varied.  That you are focused on what Bibi wanted is about you, not Bush, not Bush's or Trump's supporters.


----------



## Correll (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I don't link the two.
> ...



I don't know. Let's take a look at the traditional rules for just war. I have not looked at it for quite some time. 










						Just war theory - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





Mmm, I don't see anything clearly against preemptive war.


----------



## Correll (May 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > There is a difference between being impatient for a man to do something, and being impatient FOR war.
> ...




I can't  explain anything to someone who is being  willful ignorant.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


When I asked I assumed you would have no explanation. Once again I am right.


----------



## surada (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



It wasn't about WMDs or oil or democracy or Iraq being a threat to the neighbors. What's left but Bibi's demands?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Mmm, I don't see anything clearly against preemptive war.



There is plenty in your link. See bullets.

Preemptive war can never be a just war if there is a peaceful solution and it is possible and attempts at reaching it are not exhausted.

It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.


In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success.
You have asserted that the invasion of Iraq was not a response to a threat. WWII was a threat from a superior military expanding its borders.

Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack.
SH was not about to attack anybody.


War to punish a guilty enemy.

The was dealing with that under international law and 1441

War is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:
It is necessary that the response be commensurate with the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
Governing authorities declare war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate.

Any violence used in a preemptive war to nation build is not commensurate with the evil of SADDAM HUSSEIN cooperating with inspections. That is a fact.

Six out of ten Americans opposed the invasion without UN Authorization. They know what a just war requires. And they were absolutely right.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> He is pretending that the Civil War was about Federal Property, when it was about slavery.


You are a liar. The American Civil War was about slavery. The war about slavery was started when the traitor Confederates attacked Federal property and the newly sworn in President responded to the attack accordingly

 The facts are as follows.

South Carolina became the first state to secede from the federal Union on December 20, 1860. The victory of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election triggered cries for disunion across the slaveholding South. The secession of South Carolina precipitated the outbreak of the American Civil War in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861.​​So stop with the fantasy that I am pretending anything other than what I state to be my understanding of history and the critical facts therein.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Freeing the slaves in the majority of the slave states, meant that slavery was effectively ended in the country.


Lincoln did not advocate freeing the slaves in the slave states until after the first anniversary of the war. He advocated no slavery in new territory an stated which would do no harm to existing slave owners way of life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> I like the way that you try to limit the discussion of Lincoln to what he said DURING THE CAMPAIGN, as though the slave owners, were unable to know about his earlier, very strong abolitionists statements and positions.
> 
> That shows that you ALREADY KNOW, that Lincoln was a very strong ABOLITIONIST, and that further you know that the slaver owners would know that, and that Lincoln KNEW THAT THEY KNEW.
> 
> Thus, his lying during the campaign, pretending to be moderate, was him lying US into war.



You did not challenge my facts in the above post #1277 from you.  Therefore,  This is a lie.



Correll said:


> ALL OF THEM



Here is my fact that you failed to dispute or accept.

“The South started the CIVILWar. If you dispute that FACT show me why.”

Do you disagree with that fact.

its a fact that destroys the entirety of your Lincoln bullshit argument.  Boom! Simple as that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.



This is not my opinion. This is a fact:

FACT #1



NotfooledbyW said:


> W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.



FACT #2


NotfooledbyW said:


> It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming Iraq peacefully.



Do you dispute Fact #1 in any way?


Do you dispute Fact #2 in any way?  The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion?   Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong.


No it is impossible that Bush was sure that Iraq had WMD and was “hiding” it from 1441 inspectors in March 2003. If he was lying on March 8 that he had made no decision on the necessity of war then he was capable of lying on March 17 that he had no doubt that Iraq possessed WMD and was hiding it from the inspectors.

To have “sure“ intelligence that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors it had to be accompanied with the specific location where it was being hidden.

There are two points with respect to that. Number one: if George W. Bush was positive of the location of hidden stockpiles of WMD he would’ve given it to the inspectors as was required by 1441. And then he could choose to wage war if the United Nations Security Council still would not authorize military action against Iraq. He had the smoking gun.

It’s obvious Bush did not have positive intelligence because he could not share it. They didn’t have a specific location.

And number two: the fact that when the invasion started they could not go directly to a location where the “most lethal weapons ever devised” were allegedly being hidden from the United Nations Security Council inspectors.

You are defending the President of the United States that started a $5 trillion war that killed half a million people who did not bother if what he said was true. He could not be bothered to ask his intelligence services if they were certain and if they knew exactly where the WMD was being hidden.

He didn’t ask in my opinion because he didn’t care. 

His aim was to start a war all along and no matter what response Saddam Hussein gave to the inspectors. And after March, starting a war in Iraq heat and dust storms was too late for political reasons at hone.

 George W. Bush lied. Donald J Trump is correct. Bush lied us into war. 
.


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




I linked to the wikepedia page on the concept. The idea of all of us having our own rules, that is a lib concept and it is a just a way for assholes to change up the rules so that they can just always do what they want, and have a hissy fit when people they hate try to do anything.


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.
> ...




It is interesting that you pretend to know what I thought in the past. 


That is either incredibly arrogant of you, or incredibly dishonest.


Considering that you use such "facts" constantly to insult and smear people, I would go with dishonest.


Oh, and it really needs to be commented on, you are an ass about it. You really pile on the divisive partisan bitterness when you do it.

NOt to mention constantly peppering your posts with partisan filler of the most stupid and divisive kind.


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




What an interesting question. I only mentioned that AND gave a major example over and over, several times. 


So, are you being dishonest again, or are you revealing that you are not really reading my posts, just grabbing a rando phrase, cutting everything else and then spewing spam talking points?


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




That bit where you people disagree with someone else's reasons?

Even if you think that you "proved" them wrong?


That does not change the fact that those reasons were those people's reasons.


That you think it does, is literally insane. 


I'm serious about that. YOu are confused about how reality works. 


AND that you build on top of that madness to then be an antisemetic asshole, is...  just the icing on the cake.


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Mmm, I don't see anything clearly against preemptive war.
> ...




That is the crux of our disagreement. We disagree whether all possible peaceful solutions were exhausted. 

I mean, seriously, all this time and you still can't grasp the idea that we disagree?

What the fuck is wrong with you?





NotfooledbyW said:


> It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.
> 
> 
> In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success.
> You have asserted that the invasion of Iraq was not a response to a threat. WWII was a threat from a superior military expanding its borders.




YOU presented as a "rule" the idea that war could or should only be in response to a immediate threat to our nation. My point was to give an example that disproved your "rule".

Seriously. YOU are the one that was pushing that as a rule, not me. Are you unable to distinguish in your mind between yourself and other people? 

What the fuck is wrong with you?




NotfooledbyW said:


> Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack.
> SH was not about to attack anybody.



How is that relevant?




NotfooledbyW said:


> War to punish a guilty enemy.
> 
> The was dealing with that under international law and 1441
> 
> ...



That is not a fact. That is your opinion. Indeed, it is a statement of layered opinions, built on top of each other. 

IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.

Not how I distinguish between what I believe and concrete facts. That is something... sane people try to do. 




NotfooledbyW said:


> Six out of ten Americans opposed the invasion without UN Authorization. They know what a just war requires. And they were absolutely right.



The UN is not a world government. That a significant portion of the population has been confused on this issue, is very dangerous, and not relevant to this topic. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT is the governoring authority, not the fucking UN.


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He is pretending that the Civil War was about Federal Property, when it was about slavery.
> ...




IN context, it was clear that I was making a point about what LINCOLN was doing, not you.


If your mistake on that was honest, then you are stupid to cut so fast that you confused yourself.


IF it was just you making a pretend mistake so that you could dodge my point, and then attack a strawman, then you are a dishonest asshole. 


Either way, my point stands. BY YOUR STANDARDS, Lincoln lied US into war. 


You refuse to face that, because addressing it, undermines your goal, of just using this shit to justify partisan attacks on your enemies.


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Freeing the slaves in the majority of the slave states, meant that slavery was effectively ended in the country.
> ...




Sorry, you cut so much, I don't recall what point I was making. So, forget about it.


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I like the way that you try to limit the discussion of Lincoln to what he said DURING THE CAMPAIGN, as though the slave owners, were unable to know about his earlier, very strong abolitionists statements and positions.
> ...




Silly words games to dodge the fact that your big sin, "lying us into war", especially considering the harsh standards you have been using to justify it, in the context of Bush, 


applies to Presidents you like too.


----------



## surada (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



They planned the invasion of Iraq before Bush junior was elected. Operation Mass Appeal was set up to demonize Saddam and sell the war in 1997-1998.. This is what Israel demanded in Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.
> ...




I see that President Bush said something.

I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate. 

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit, 

THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".


But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative. Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.


----------



## Correll (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong.
> ...



That is an absurd statement. That is you can say it seriously, is you revealing yourself to be completely irrational.





NotfooledbyW said:


> If he was lying on March 8 that he had made no decision on the necessity of war then he was capable of lying on March 17 that he had no doubt that Iraq possessed WMD and was hiding it from the inspectors.



SO, to support your statement that the it is a "fact" what Bush was thinking, you have a supporting argument based on an IF/THEN. 

IF, he was CAPABLE of lying, that does not mean that HE DID LIE. 


That you need shit like this explained to you, is you being utterly blinded by partisan hate.




NotfooledbyW said:


> To have “sure“ intelligence that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors it had to be accompanied with the specific location where it was being hidden.



Does it? I can think of several scenarios easily where that would not be true. Also, it is quite possible that he could have convinced himself that his intelligence was better than it was. 




NotfooledbyW said:


> There are two points with respect to that. Number one: if George W. Bush was positive of the location of hidden stockpiles of WMD he would’ve given it to the inspectors as was required by 1441. And then he could choose to wage war if the United Nations Security Council still would not authorize military action against Iraq. He had the smoking gun.
> 
> It’s obvious Bush did not have positive intelligence because he could not share it. They didn’t have a specific location.



This is you building shit on top of a flawed argument. 




NotfooledbyW said:


> And number two: the fact that when the invasion started they could not go directly to a location where the “most lethal weapons ever devised” were allegedly being hidden from the United Nations Security Council inspectors.
> 
> You are defending the President of the United States that started a $5 trillion war that killed half a million people who did not bother if what he said was true. He could not be bothered to ask his intelligence services if they were certain and if they knew exactly where the WMD was being hidden.



YOu  just made that up. YOu have no way of knowing if he ever asked his people that. 




NotfooledbyW said:


> He didn’t ask in my opinion because he didn’t care.
> 
> His aim was to start a war all along and no matter what response Saddam Hussein gave to the inspectors. And after March, starting a war in Iraq heat and dust storms was too late for political reasons at hone.
> 
> ...




Do you think that GWBush thought taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic nation was the right policy for America and the World?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.


That is not a reply to what was asked.

Facts don’t give a shit if a Trump supporter believed them. Do you dispute that the following description of what happened and said true and accurate

I don’t care if you believe or disbelieve what the participants said.


Fact #1


NotfooledbyW said:


> W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.



FACT #2


NotfooledbyW said:


> It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming a Iraq peacefully.





NotfooledbyW said:


> The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion? Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.



Regarding FACT 2 I am asking your that because you specifically lied when you wrote.



Correll said:


> It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.



It was not my opinion that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully. That is a fact. The entire 1441 inspection process up to Shock Awe and Blitzkrieg was peaceful.  Do you dispute that?


----------



## surada (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Saddam didn't have any WMDs.. He also didn't want Iran to know how utterly crippled Iraq was.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.



Bush did when he went to the UNSC, with  the draft Resolution that became 1441 to give SH a final opportunity to comply.

Every nation on the Security Council agreed that from the unanimous vote in the affirmative the inspection chiefs on nuclear, biological and chemical proscribed weapons would go forth to see if SH would be disarmed peacefully or not.

Is that fact or is it not fact?

I don’t care that you have an opinion that SH could not be trusted or if you think W was being tricky with the world so he could get Blair to help him unilaterally disarm Iraq by the  killing civilians means rather than the peaceful means.

I don’t care if you believe in all that.

The question to you is: did W go to the UN, get 1441 passed which had as its goal to try to disarm Iraq peacefully? Or did it none if that happen? Stop dancing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.


That is not what you were asked. Did the 1441 chief  weapons inspectors evaluate and report that SH was indeed cooperating prior to Bush‘s decision to invade?

Colin Powell stated on the  ABC News THIS WEEK SHOW between Christmas and NEW Years three months before the Shock Awe and Blitzkrieg that SH was cooperating and that war was not inevitable.

Powell’s opinion on that matter has value. Yours and mine had no value whatsoever at the time.  Our opinions matter now based upon verification of all the facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> Does it? I can think of several scenarios easily where that would not be true.


 Well,  tell us about them?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,



Do you really mean that now in your exact words

 “prior to the war”  and if  “and the experts agreed” ??

THEN YOU would have been convinced that he SH had been "disarmed".

Absolutely positively you would have agreed that it was absolutely ok with you that SH remain the dictator in Iraq. And that means starting a war to “nation build” would be canceled? Shams Amin, her two brothers and her father would not have had a bunker buster dropped on them and her mother would not become without a family and husband to care for her as her better life was to go on living in the Christian culture democracy that Dick Cheney was being so kind to bomb her into being blessed with?

Is that your position now?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.


I was not talking about statements regarding a prediction whether or whether not SH *would* cooperate.

 I was asking you whether or not it was a fact that Dr. Hans Blix had reported to the United Nations Security Council prior to the start of the war that SH *was* cooperating.

Do you accept as a matter of fact that Dr. Hans Blix stated prior to the war that SH was cooperating. In fact he said that SH was proactively cooperating prior to the invasion.

YES OR NO?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> Silly words games to dodge the fact t



How is asking you if you agree that the Confederates started the CIVIL WAR when they attacked and captured Fort Sumter is a silly word game.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. The peaceful process was not working. It could never have been "finished".



Which statement should we believe?




Correll said:


> IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,
> 
> THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".



You said the experts would lie to prevent war didn’t you. How would know if the experts were lying or telling the truth?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is interesting that you pretend to know what I thought in the past.


You mean you supported invading Iraq to do nation building but you gave your support for killing civilians in order to destroy their government, their police and courts and their fire department, their water and electricity infrastructure, their food production and distribution but you did not bother to ask yourself if Bush was prepared to take care of the the innocent people whose lives he would disrupt after Shocking and awe-ing them.

JESUS! Dude you are a despicable human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> We disagree whether all possible peaceful solutions were exhausted.


There is no disagreement. You have indicated that you know what ‘exhausting peaceful means to avoid war’ is. And I agree with you


Correll said:


> IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,
> 
> THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".



As you know, we found the truth after the violent means to disarm Iraq that SH had no WMD to turn over. 

Based on what we know now, I agree with you that ‘exhausting peaceful means to avoid war’  wouid be giving the experts enough time to agree that SH turned over or destroyed “the bulk of his shit”’

Bush did not give the inspectors the time they needed so it is a lie to claim that Bush exhausted peaceful means to avoid war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> What an interesting question. I only mentioned that AND gave a major example over and over, several times.


Your major example was 1939 Germany. In my response to that moronic nonsense I told you  Germany was a threat to world peace. And since America is part of the world, Germany was a direct threat to America.  That is an undisputed fact.


----------



## BS Filter (May 31, 2021)

I supported war on Iraq, but we should have taken out Iran.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (May 31, 2021)

BS Filter said:


> I supported war on Iraq, but we should have taken out Iran.


For what? Neither nation had anything to do with the al Qaeda attacks on September 12, 2001.


----------



## BS Filter (May 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > I supported war on Iraq, but we should have taken out Iran.
> ...


Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism.  Do you support that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

BS Filter said:


> Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism.


I support having facts. Thus far in what known as as reality the number one terrorist organization that killed American citizens on US Soil is al Qaeda and then its offspring ISIS. Both were Sunni. Iran put fighters in Iraq and Syria to fight alongside the Obama coalition against ISIS.

The next biggest threat to America is white supremacy Anti-democracy terrorists like the ones that stormed  the Capitol on January 6 who were inspired to do so by Donald J Trump. If you are concerned about terrorism I suggest we stop the domestic terrorists first.

Have you joined a military organization that will be invading Iran any time soon. If not why not?

 I reject any stupid repeat of sending American ground troops into any Muslim nation to topple any regime ever again in the WAR ON TERROR.  I’ll support whatever the United Nations supports in dealing with Iran. Six of ten Americans wanted Bush not to invade Iraq unless with UN Backing. We were right. The 4 of ten who wanted to kill Iraqi civilians to disarm were wrong.

I see you have not learned a fucking thing from the debacle known as the US invasion of Iraq to find WMD.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




There were people that supported the policy of war with Iraq before George W Bush was elected. 


You seem to be implying that the fact that they wanted something that the leader of Israel wanted, is relevant, but you are not saying why. 

Do you think that just saying "jew" at me, a bunch is undermining my argument somehow?


----------



## surada (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Yes, of course it was the centerpiece of Bibi's Clean Break Strategy .. 

Read it and then read the 1998 PNAC letter to Bill Clinton.. Take note of the dual citizen signatories .. Bush junior went on to hire many of them in his administration.

Why do you think the Brits set up Operation Mass Appeal. What buffoonery and it 's like the US  never even saw it. Lazy or stupid???

They even bought into that Saudi Booze Wars idiocy.. The American expats laughed till they slit their sides.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.
> ...




Yes, I do. ON  3 levels.


1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.  

2. The inspectors were NOT peacefully disarming Iraq. The WMDs, we now know, were already destroyed. Thus, the claim that they were doing it, was not true. It was already done. Just not properly documented, so it was not known to have been done.

3. And any discussion of motives or decision making, you have to "care" what people believed. If someone poisoned a pie and you did not know that, and you gave it to someone, thinking it was good food, you are not the murderer. Only an asshole would deny that you must judge people's actions, in light of what they know, or think that they know.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Do you understand that that is not relevant?


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.
> ...




That is some serious begging the question fallacy.

1. Your dismissal of my belief that Saddam could not be trusted to truly cooperate, does not change that fact that that was something I believed then and it was a part of my thought process that led me to support war. 

2. "By killing civilians"? God was an  ass you are.

3. The UN can go fuck itself for all I care.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.
> ...




Saddam knew where his wmds were. Saddam cooperating would have been Saddam taking the inspectors to his weapons so they could see them being destroyed.

Powell being satisfied that Saddam was "cooperating" with inspectors by letting them travel around  and look for shit, was not convincing.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Does it? I can think of several scenarios easily where that would not be true.
> ...




Sorry, you cut EVERYTHING, and it was several days before I had a chance to reply. I don't recall exactly what this was in reference to. It has been a busy few days. Very fun.


----------



## surada (Jun 1, 2021)

BS Filter said:


> I supported war on Iraq, but we should have taken out Iran.



Iran wasn't crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.. Invading Iran would make Iraq look like a Sunday school picnic. Americans are so damned ignorant about the Middle East.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,
> ...




No. I meant what I said. That that would have convinced me that he was disarmed and that he had cooperated. 

That would not mean that it was OK with me that Saddam would remain dictator. 


That would have meant, imo, that Bush would have been politically forced to NOT invade.


Please pretend that I have inserted a bunch of appeal to emotion shit, about the negative effects of THAT policy, they way you constantly pepper your posts with. I can't be bothered to actually BE that lame, but it would serve you right to have to put up with such idiocy.


----------



## surada (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Yeah Powell was convincing.. Are you Israeli or something? I have never seen such wilfull ignorance.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.
> ...




Sorry, you cut all the context of the comment. And I've been clear that I did not find the un inspectors credible, so your obsession with their statements is irrelevant.


----------



## surada (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You're hopeless. The US couldn't find any WMDs so they came up with another fantastic story about how Saddam was trucking his weapons back and forth between Sudan and Syria. I thought I'd die laughing.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Silly words games to dodge the fact t
> ...




Because it ignores the topic  of the discussion, about how Lincolns LIES, led to war, and he knew they would. 


You want to focus on the trees, to avoid looking at the forest. 


It is how you are avoiding the fact that I am kicking your ass.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 2. The peaceful process was not working. It could never have been "finished".
> ...




If I was you, I would assume it, and then start calling it a "fact" and obsessive spout historical trivia at people that dared to disagree. Oh, and insult them and constantly post shit about the terrible human cost of the policies they supported, as though they didn't know, because....


well for some reason.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting that you pretend to know what I thought in the past.
> ...




Sorry, you cut all teh context. I'm sure that was not the point I was making and that you are just being an asshole, but I don't recall the point I was making, so, never mind.


I can only assume you don't care either, or you wouldn't have CUT everything,  so no harm done.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 1, 2021)

struth said:


> Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too


TRUMP supported it until the end but they are still there. 
Remember it was a Republican who sent the troops.


----------



## surada (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Lincoln? Are you daft? We are talking about the invasion of Iraq NOT the US Civil War.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > We disagree whether all possible peaceful solutions were exhausted.
> ...




That was very dishonest of you. And blatantly so.

MY statement involved the turning over of a large supply of wmds. 


Your scenario does not.

Yet, you pretend that your scenario satisfies my statement and then build on top of that. 


Much of your position on this issue seems to be based on silly games like that.

AND considering your name, it seems that a good portion of your self image might be too.


Pretty sad.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What an interesting question. I only mentioned that AND gave a major example over and over, several times.
> ...




oh, so you did know. Why did you pretend to not know? That was you lying. 


You know, you lie a lot. Because of that, nothing you say is credible. 


How do I know that you have not found my points about lincoln and germany to be incredibly convincing but you are just lying and claiming you don't?


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism.
> ...




I stopped reading here. I don't know whether you are lying or retarded, but either way, your credibility is now zero.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




Why do you think I care about any of this? I have no problem with jews engaging in the political process like everyone else.


----------



## struth (Jun 1, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too
> ...


trump was critical of the iraq war.

and bush couldn’t of sent troops without the authorization of xiden and company

also we were already there...Clinton was bombing iraq and signed law passed by xiden and company to overthrow saddam


----------



## surada (Jun 1, 2021)

struth said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Nope. Trump supported the war on the Howard Stern show.. He didn't come out against the invasion until it was obvious even to dumbasses that it was a FUBAR.

Clinton was too smart to be manipulated by the PNAC.


----------



## struth (Jun 1, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


haha stop lying...the propaganda is bs

Clinton signed the iraq liberation act


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.


Its not what they claimed. Its what they were doing. They were disarming Iraq as specified in 1441. DO YOU DENY TARGET?  

And as it was recorded in history by every reporter and observer alive and conscious and in every language at the time - the 1441 process that Blix and El Baradai participated in was peaceful. There was no violence involved. Do you agree with that?


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Saddam would know where he wmds, were. If he was truly cooperating, he would just take them there.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




That has nothing to do with the post you were "replying" to. If you just want to throw shit at a wall, like a monkey, go do it elsewhere.


----------



## surada (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Take them where? Saddam didn't have any WMDs .. That's the point.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Not made a point about lying to start a war. So I offered another example to see if that was a real principle of his, or just him being a partisan zealot throwing shit against a wall, like a monkey. 


You really couldn't figure that out?

oh, wait. you were just talking shit, weren't you?


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.
> ...




How were they disarming Iraq, when the WMDs had already been destroyed?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. The inspectors were NOT peacefully disarming Iraq. The WMDs, we now know, were already destroyed.



You are as stupid as you can get with your answer 2  and you still don’t get it.

“We NOW know - You clueless moron - means they did not know at the time, but it was the peaceful process they were conducting to verify that old chemical weapons claimed to have been destroyed by the IRAQ regime actually were destroyed.

They were apparently destroyed in the south and the inspectors were gearing up to visit the burn pits and use modern technology to verify a quantity that had been destroyed -  Peacefully  - until the lying George W BUSH  decided to do it violently. - and end up killing half a million innocent Iraqis by doing it through war.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




NOt is discussing events and decisions as they occurred at the time. 

AT THE TIME, we did not know that there were no wmds. 

Though it is possible that Not is confused about the way time works. Many libs are.


----------



## struth (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


yes saddam wasn’t cooperating 

the inspectors noted that in their report and testimony


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> someone poisoned a pie and you did not know that, and you gave it to someone, thinking it was good food, you are not the murderer.


Bush did not hand out a poisonous pie when he invaded Iraq. He handed out the poison of war and death and destruction. The peaceful process of inspections was the pie. Bush smashed the pie abd then smashed Iraq.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > someone poisoned a pie and you did not know that, and you gave it to someone, thinking it was good food, you are not the murderer.
> ...




It is not credible the way that you missed my point. 


You are just dishonestly stone walling. 


That is what someone does when they know they have lost the debate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> t is not credible the way that you missed my point.


Explain why I missed your point.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > t is not credible the way that you missed my point.
> ...




No. I'm not here to baby you, like you are a child.


You choose to stonewall, thus revealing that you know you have lost the debate.


This is what this is all about to you. 


Something is wrong with your brain. You can't accept that other  people disagree with you. You think that you can "prove" that they are wrong, and if you do, that means that their reasons are not really their reasons, 


AND THEN, you get to assign motives, ie "bloodthirsty warmongers" so that you  can vilify your enemies, to comic book villain levels.


This is quite delusional of you.


That you are ALSO confused about how time works, ie that even if you prove something NOW, it does not change what people thought THEN, 


is just another level of delusion piled on top of your already fucked in the head-ness.



You need to face that fact that there is something wrong with you. Are you in the care of a phycological professional?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> Do you understand that that is not relevant?



Those two points are extremely relevant. You do not get to decide what is relevant and what is not. Specifically since you’re such a big liar.



Correll said:


> If I was you, I would assume it, and then start calling it a "fact" and obsessive spout historical trivia at people that dared to disagree. Oh, and insult them and constantly post shit about the terrible human cost of the policies they supported, as though they didn't know, because....
> 
> 
> well for some reason.


I’ll take that as a firm “no” because you do not want to tell us which one of your two contradicting statements is true and which one is false. Thank you


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> o. I'm not here to baby you, like you are a child.


I must take that to mean that you have no explanations for what you post.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand that that is not relevant?
> ...




What statements? They are gone. Couldn't have been that important.

Also, you are the who has demonstrated that they are not credible, not me.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > o. I'm not here to baby you, like you are a child.
> ...




My point stands. 



You choose to stonewall, thus revealing that you know you have lost the debate.


This is what this is all about to you.


Something is wrong with your brain. You can't accept that other people disagree with you. You think that you can "prove" that they are wrong, and if you do, that means that their reasons are not really their reasons,


AND THEN, you get to assign motives, ie "bloodthirsty warmongers" so that you can vilify your enemies, to comic book villain levels.


This is quite delusional of you.


That you are ALSO confused about how time works, ie that even if you prove something NOW, it does not change what people thought THEN,


is just another level of delusion piled on top of your already fucked in the head-ness.



You need to face that fact that there is something wrong with you. Are you in the care of a phycological professional?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> You can't accept that other people disagree with you.


Like I’ve told you before this is about facts the kind of facts that are not subject to disagreement. The earth revolves around the sun. That is a fact. The fact that the United Nations security counsel inspectors under the direction of Dr. Hans Blix  was “peacefully“ verifying that Iraq  was definitely disarmed and in compliance with its United Nations Security Council obligations from November 2002 through March 2003 until such time that President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq in  order to verify that Iraq was disarmed through violent means.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> My point stands.


My point is standing on your head. Lay your king down.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You can't accept that other people disagree with you.
> ...




Other people's statements are not "facts".  

YOU might find them credible. I don't.


That you are unwilling or unable to accept that fact, is you being either a dishonest stonewaller, or a delusional madman.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > My point stands.
> ...



You choose to stonewall, thus revealing that you know you have lost the debate.


This is what this is all about to you.


Something is wrong with your brain. You can't accept that other people disagree with you. You think that you can "prove" that they are wrong, and if you do, that means that their reasons are not really their reasons,


AND THEN, you get to assign motives, ie "bloodthirsty warmongers" so that you can vilify your enemies, to comic book villain levels.


This is quite delusional of you.


That you are ALSO confused about how time works, ie that even if you prove something NOW, it does not change what people thought THEN,


is just another level of delusion piled on top of your already fucked in the head-ness.



You need to face that fact that there is something wrong with you. Are you in the care of a phycological professional?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> ND THEN, you get to assign motives, ie "bloodthirsty warmongers" so that you can vilify your enemies, to comic book villain levels.


You are a bloodthirsty warmonger. You supported and still support our culturally Christian nation to embark on a military policy of nation building war in a Muslim country that was absolutely no threat to the world or us at the time when President George W. Bush launched the invasion.

You are a bloodthirsty warmonger because you supported war over exhausting the peaceful means of United Nations Security Council inspections to verify whether or not Iraq was disarmed.

No I’m not saying being a bloodthirsty warmonger is your motive. I am free to speculate on your motives. I believe it’s because you are a cultural Christian wherein the tribe of the Republican  Party comes first and foremost when deciding what to  and what to not support. You have shown you have no appreciation for facts in any of our discussions.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am free to speculate on your motives. I believe it’s because you are a cultural Christian wherein the tribe of the Republican Party comes first and foremost when deciding what to and what to not support. You have shown you have no appreciation for facts in any of our discussions.



Is the Dem Party a "tribe" in your mind?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> Is the Dem Party a "tribe" in your mind?


to some it could be. I’m not the one in denial of facts. That is you .


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> That you are ALSO confused about how time works, ie that even if you prove something NOW, it does not change what people thought THEN,


You are lying about Iraq now. Thats what is urgent today. Knocking down your lies about what happened back then.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Is the Dem Party a "tribe" in your mind?
> ...




LO!!! Then your use of it, to refer to the GOP is just you being a partisan ass.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That you are ALSO confused about how time works, ie that even if you prove something NOW, it does not change what people thought THEN,
> ...




lol!! "Knocking down" my beliefs of then, even if you were to pull it off, would not change the fact that it was my belief then. 

You are literally insane.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 1, 2021)

struth said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Yeah sure.   Silly me.  I thought Bush was protecting the oil reserves but there are fools who believed he  was dispensing freedom.


----------



## struth (Jun 1, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


both


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> Saddam would know where he wmds, were. If he was truly cooperating, he would just take them there.


SH knew he had none.  He was proactively cooperating because they were verifying they were destroyed before the invasion. That was what the inspectors were indeed working on when W quit cooperating to look for imaginary WMD that only existed in his lying head.



Correll said:


> lol!! "Knocking down" my beliefs of then, even if you were to pull it off, would not change the fact that it was my belief then.


You can’t even read. Here’s what I said;

“You are lying about Iraq now. Thats what is urgent today. Knocking down your lies about what happened back then.”


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam would know where he wmds, were. If he was truly cooperating, he would just take them there.
> ...




You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact. THey were destroyed. He failed to document their destruction.

THe inspectors were on a fool's errand that could NOT be accomplished.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are lying about Iraq now. Thats what is urgent today. Knocking down your lies about what happened back then.





struth said:


> Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too


You are a liar. Nancy did not vote for the war if it ended up being determined by Bush to be necessary. 

And Biden determined it was not necessary to start a war in the Spring or Summer of 2003 without a second UN Resolution and without letting the inspectors have the time they needed to finish their job.


Senator Biden February 2003:  But I am going to front-end guess it. 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.​


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > You are lying about Iraq now. Thats what is urgent today. Knocking down your lies about what happened back then.
> ...




I don't trust any of your statements on who said what when. 

You have demonstrated that you are willing to lie, IF, not worse than that, not knowing the difference between truth and fiction.


Of course, I mostly don't care about your reasons then for what you believed then. It is would be insane to think that arguing about the validity of them, would change the fact that they were your reasons then. 


LITERALLY insane.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact.


You are a liar.

That was one of the issues UNMOVIC on the work programme that Blix mentioned in his report to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003, ten days before the dumb war was started. 

Mr. President, Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks;​
Recent Items​
it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.​
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.​
This is one of your many current lies about the run up to the war in Iraq. Who do you think you are telling the United Nations Security Council and the best weapons inspectors in the world what they cannot do. You are a ridiculous bloodthirsty warmonger thinking you can get away with lying like that. What will it take to get you to stop lying?

And read that report by Dr. Hans Blix that I just posted above. He speaks about the ongoing monitoring that is to take place in Iraq to to keep SH  in line after Dr. Blix and Mr al Beradai complete the inspection process.

United Nations Security Council was not walking away from Iraq once the inspection process was completed.

But quit lying. Dr. Hans Blix clearly believed they could resolve the issue of  the unilateral destruction of weapons within about 90 days of his report on March 7 2003 Unless Butch forced him to leave Iraq to start a war to kill civilians while searching for WMD that was not there.

I as usual an posting the facts. I wonder what will be your response to the facts.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact.
> ...




That was some nice spam. It certainly gave the illusion of being Authoritative, but without actually saying anything relevant. 


Here are some problems with this post.


1. You are not credible. YOu have been very dishonest. YOur claims have no weight.

2. THe UN inspectors are not credible. Their claims have no weight.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't trust any of your statements on who said what when.



Of course you don’t. Facts are not allowed in your head. In this case they disrupt your war mongering ways.

I have posted what Senator Biden said during a Senate hearing in February 2003. It’s from the Congressional record. If you can’t trust the Congressional record you can’t trust anything.

Your fellow warmonger struth  refuses also to hear what Senator Biden had to say Because he loves to lie about the run up to the war in Iraqjust like you.  

Biden didn’t vote for war.

I’ve been clear on what he actually voted for. It’s based on the wording of the authorization to use military force Iraq if necessary

 And he opposed Bush’s decision to start the war in March 2003. It’s in the Congressional record. Can you call me a liar for saying that. How to make you feel better about killing half 1 million Iraqis for nothing and wasting $5 trillion dollars the mistake of invading Iraq in March 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> That was some nice spam.



How many times are you going to embarrass yourself like that?


----------



## struth (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > You are lying about Iraq now. Thats what is urgent today. Knocking down your lies about what happened back then.
> ...


Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it


----------



## meaner gene (Jun 1, 2021)

struth said:


> Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it


Congress approved using the military to go after those responsible for 9-11.

Bush lied that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.


----------



## struth (Jun 1, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it
> ...


They did...and they also Authorized the Use of Force against Iraq



			https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm


----------



## meaner gene (Jun 1, 2021)

struth said:


> They did...and they also Authorized the Use of Force against Iraq
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm



But that authorization was only for specific purposes, such as to go after the WMD's which didn't exist, or to enforce UN resolutions that weren't violated.


----------



## struth (Jun 1, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > They did...and they also Authorized the Use of Force against Iraq
> ...


maybe you should read there were numerous thing most notably to over throw saddam 

and yes wmds were found 

and yes UN resolutions were violated


----------



## meaner gene (Jun 1, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Page Not Found
> 
> 
> But that authorization was only for specific purposes, such as to go after the WMD's which didn't exist, or to enforce UN resolutions that weren't violated.





struth said:


> maybe you should read there were numerous thing most notably to over throw saddam
> 
> and yes wmds were found
> 
> and yes UN resolutions were violated


Overthrowing Saddam was not part of the authorization, as that would be in violation of the United Nations Treaty, which supersedes US law.

As far as finding WMD's the Charles Duelfer CIA report concluded that the WMD's found were lost, obsolete or almost inert.

And there were no UN resolutions, such as requiring Iraq to disarm, were no violated because, once more the CIA report concluded that Iraq had disarmed from their WMD's years earlier.


----------



## meaner gene (Jun 1, 2021)

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.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


----------



## struth (Jun 1, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > Page Not Found
> ...


of course it was!  The Iraq Liberation Act was cited

geez you have no clue


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Of course you don’t. Facts are not allowed in your head. In this case they disrupt your war mongering ways.
> 
> I have posted what Senator Biden said during a Senate hearing in February 2003. It’s from the Congressional record. If you can’t trust the Congressional record you can’t trust anything.




See this is the shit that I point to, that you are not credible.


THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth. 

You are pretending that if it is there, it is a "Fact".


That is you being a liar, and thus not credible.


----------



## Correll (Jun 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That was some nice spam.
> ...




Dude. YOu look retarded.


----------



## meaner gene (Jun 1, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Overthrowing Saddam was not part of the authorization, as that would be in violation of the United Nations Treaty, which supersedes US law.





struth said:


> of course it was!  The Iraq Liberation Act was cited
> 
> geez you have no clue


The Iraq Liberation Act supported opposing forces, not military action.









						H.R.4655 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
					

Summary of H.R.4655 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Iraq Liberation Act of 1998



					www.congress.gov
				



Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations:


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

struth said:


> and yes wmds were found


Thats a better warmonger myth to believe      Than the myth that Correll believes. He believes nation building was justification for the invasion. The WMD didn’t matter.

Correll​
May 14, 2021
#766
Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.



Biden said this; 

“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? And that is a tough question.”​

What aspect of that comment do you think      Is a lie?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

struth said:


> Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it


Bush used the US MILITARY to bomb the shit out of Iraq during the summer of 2002 long before anybody authorized it if necessary specific to Iraq.

Bush would never have sought an AUMF specific to Iraq in the broad war on terror, but he had to go through the UN so Tony Blair could join the fun of killing half a million Iraqis. The Iraq AUMF was created to force SH to allow inspectors in because Blair couldn’t go unless the UNSC gave SH a final chance to comply.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.


If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible. You shouid have not opposed or not supported the prospect of starting a war abd killibg civilians because you could not find a credible soul in the world to allow you to know wtf was going in Iraq at that time.


----------



## struth (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it
> ...


Clinton was already bombing iraq


----------



## struth (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > and yes wmds were found
> ...


there are a number of good reasons. Xiden outlined them in his authorization.


----------



## struth (Jun 2, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > Overthrowing Saddam was not part of the authorization, as that would be in violation of the United Nations Treaty, which supersedes US law.
> ...


it supported over throwing saddam


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 2, 2021)

struth said:


> it supported over throwing saddam


Not with an American Blitzkrieg.


struth said:


> Clinton was already bombing iraq


Clinton Never dreamed of launching a ground invasion.  never.   Bush should have stopped that policy after 1441 was passed. Iraq would have been disarmed peacefully? Therefore 4484 Americans would not be dead, half a million Iraqis would not be dead, and Americans couid have spent the $5 trillion they spent on Iraq on America.


----------



## struth (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > it supported over throwing saddam
> ...


it never said ground troops couldn’t be used

clinton supported overthrowing saddam and was using military while president 

had clinton been more aggressive and with Bush instead of Obama and Xiden folllowibg him we likely wouldn’t of seen the rise of terrorism


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 2, 2021)

struth said:


> it never said ground troops couldn’t be used


The declaration of independence never said the United States could not use ground troops and invade Iraq just the same. You are a fool.

The reason that the  Document being discussed never said a word about using American ground forces to liberate Iraq was because nobody in their right mind would ever have suggested such a thing.  If they did they would have been laughed out of the room. And that includes dick Cheney who knew better at the time than to  put American troops on the ground in Iraq combat situation.


----------



## struth (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > it never said ground troops couldn’t be used
> ...


why would it have?  it was dealing with our independence from UK,  not our policies of overthrowing saddam 

no the reason it didn’t was because we wanted to leave all options open.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 2, 2021)

saddam was a HUGE THREAT -------baathist (to wit arab nazi ---supported by
   Imperialist Russia)


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 2, 2021)

struth said:


> why would it have?



Exactly There point. The same goes for the Iraqi Liberation Act  in 1998.  

They don’t list every fucking possibility known to mankind to be excluded when writing legislation in Congress. They list only what they were authorizing.

Think about it you First Class Trump Supporter.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 2, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> saddam was a HUGE THREAT --



Why did Bush think Saddam staying in power was not a threat requiring his removal from power up until March 8 ... 10, 2003.

Will you explain why we should believe you when Bush didn’t?


----------



## surada (Jun 2, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Clinton was much smarter than Dubya. There was absolutely NO reason to take Saddam out.. EXCEPT Clean Break Strategy demanded it.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > saddam was a HUGE THREAT --
> ...


Bush did not ask me.    Do you know what BAATHISM is?    Any other 
Baathists?    Ever TALK to a Baathist? ----Saddam was not just a guy who 
joined up naively-----like some hitler youth kids had no idea.   He was a 
DIEHARD BAATHIST seeking to impose that filth IMPERIALLY.   He also 
wanted to genocide the shiites out of existence  ----well---not such a 
bad idea  (?????)


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 2, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


 *BS  ^^^^   Saddam had a FOLLOWING.   He even had agents in 
the USA*


----------



## surada (Jun 2, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> saddam was a HUGE THREAT -------baathist (to wit arab nazi ---supported by
> Imperialist Russia)



Saddam was not a threat to any of his neighbors. You obviously don't know anything about Baathism. We invaded Iraq to make Bibi Netanyahu happy.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 2, 2021)

surada said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > saddam was a HUGE THREAT -------baathist (to wit arab nazi ---supported by
> ...



   Surada was brought up on   DA JOOOOS DONE IT.    Actually Saddam did invade 
   Kuwait.     HOWEVER that move was justified in muzzie land by claiming that the 
   Kuwaitis are so  RICH----but do not share with the rest of muzzie land.    Sorry 
   SURY HABIBI-----even back then I worked with lots of muslims so I had access 
   to the latest  Khutbah jumaat feces flings. (of the sunni variety)    IMO   just taking Saddam out----- in the  mode of   KHADAFFY    could have been enough.  Then the left-over sunnis and 
   shiites could have battled it out themselves


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.
> ...



notfooled  -----you might feel a bit better by knowing that SADDAM, himself 
was murdering tens of thousands----BEFORE the USA got there.     Shiites mostly 
in Southern Iraq and Kurds in the hills.    Saddam was into chemical warfare too---
leading to a plethora of birth defects in Iraqi kids----if I remember correctly--in 
the NORTHERN part of Iraq  ----recognized by the 1980s


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 2, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> notfooled -----you might feel a bit better by knowing that SADDAM, himself
> was murdering tens of thousands----BEFORE the USA got there. Shiites mostly
> in Southern Iraq and Kurds in the hills. Saddam was into chemical warfare too---
> leading to a plethora of birth defects in Iraqi kids----if I remember correctly--in
> the NORTHERN part of Iraq ----recognized by the 1980s


I know it. Do you have a point? Do you have a question for me? Are you going to ever respond to my question?


----------



## surada (Jun 2, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Britain began selling the war on Iraq in 1997-1998. .. Sir Derek Plumbly was in charge.


----------



## surada (Jun 2, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil ten years earlier.. Papa Bush was too smart to invade Iraq.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > notfooled -----you might feel a bit better by knowing that SADDAM, himself
> ...


the question  "do you think we should have invaded Iraq"?      Here's my answer.  
In retrospect I believe that just knocking Saddam out would have been a MUCH 
better idea.    BUT BACK then I understood that such a move would have created 
a blood bath between sunnis and shiites and---also killed lots of KURDS.    
I was a softie back then and absolutely did not want that to happen


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 2, 2021)

surada said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


For those who do not know-----Saddam justified his invasion of Kuwait by claiming 
that Kuwait----which sits on an OCEAN OF OIL   was -----SLANT DRILLING 
IRAQ"S  oil ---------yeah right.      And Iran claimed that Israel steals Iranian rain 
clouds.    My all time fave is the arab baathist claim that Israel TRAINS SNAKES to 
PREFERENTIALLY bite arabs.     ----for the record the snake barely has a brain---more 
like a pair of ganglia up front.     I am so delighted with Surada----he knows the islamo-
nazi propaganda  BY ROTE


----------



## struth (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > why would it have?
> ...


Well it depends what sort of law it is, like is it a law authoriing something?  Like Xiden's Use of Force against Iraq law?  

The Iraq Liberation Act wasn't authorizing anything...it was stating US policy...which was to overthrow Saddam, and help nation build in the state when done. 

Let's not forget the warning by Bill Clinton when making it US policy to overthrow Saddam: 
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. ...

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits. ...

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. ...

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. ...

— President Clinton ~ 1998


----------



## struth (Jun 2, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Um...Clinton was the one that made it US Policy in 1998 to take Saddam out....on signing the Iraq Liberation Act....and right before he started bombing Saddam...

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. ...

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits. ...

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. ...

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. ...

— President Clinton ~ 1998


----------



## struth (Jun 2, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Cool...Bill Clinton and Xiden started selling it here about then too


----------



## Correll (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > and yes wmds were found
> ...




That you feel the need to characterize our differing opinions as "myths" is you being an asshole.


----------



## Correll (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.
> ...




Why did you misrepresent what I said?


----------



## Correll (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.
> ...



THat I did not find the un credible, does not mean that I did not find the bush administration credible. 


That you pretend that it does mean that, is you being dishonest again. 


Other people might not be credible.

You have anti-credibility. If you say something, your words have the REVERSE weight as to what you intended.


----------



## struth (Jun 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


he’s Baghdad Bob it’s what he does


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> THat I did not find the un credible, does not mean that I did not find the bush administration credible.



Of course you found Bush credible. He was the leader of your tribe at the time.

What is incredible is your inability to read. I didn’t say you found Bush not to be credible when he flat out lied to you.

Here is what I wrote;

“If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible.”

If you actually believed that you, with your limited  tribal brain, could not find the UNSC inspectors to be credible, then you need to realize that you should never have supported the war based on what Bush was telling you. There were too many facts available for six out of ten Americans to realize,  if not instinctively, that the wisest move before starting a war wouid be let the inspectors finish checking out the WMD situation in IRAQ and only go in with UN backing. Just like Biden said needed to be done.


----------



## surada (Jun 2, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Kuwait wouln't foregive the OPEC quota debt. KSA  did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible.





Correll said:


> Why did you misrepresent what I said?


I believe I learned in third grade, maybe it was kindergarten, that if someone is not ‘telling the truth” it means they are lying. 



Correll said:


> THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.


 
What was misrepresented?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> at you feel the need to characterize our differing opinions as "myths" is you being an asshole.


Do you actually believe the myth that struth repeated is true. That actual WMD was found? Bush and Cheney don’t repeat that myth.


----------



## Correll (Jun 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > THat I did not find the un credible, does not mean that I did not find the bush administration credible.
> ...




You don't seem to be grasping much of what I am saying. And your questions are generally missing the point, or mischaracterizing shit and peppered with partisan filler. 

IMO, the motive of the UN inspectors was PEACE AT ANY COST, which made their statements not credible. They have motive to lie.


Bush on the other hand, his motive was to advance the National Security Interests of the United States, by winning the war on terror. He did NOT have motive to lie, thus he was more credible.


----------



## Correll (Jun 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible.
> ...




Doesn't matter. THe point is that you are citing the fact that something was said, as PROOF THAT THAT MAKES IT A FACT.


That is literally insane of you.


----------



## Correll (Jun 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > at you feel the need to characterize our differing opinions as "myths" is you being an asshole.
> ...




I know that there was some stuff found that could technically (or legally) be considered to fit that description, depending on which definitions you used, such as old chem artillery shells or....I don't really recall. But I do believe that some such stuff was found.

That is not how I roll. 

IMO, the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.


Thus, me and struth have different opinions on the matter. I respect his position and his right to have it, I do not think less of him because of our disagreement and I would be happy to civilly discuss the matter with him, over a beer, if there were not more pressing matters to discuss, which there almost certainly would be. 


Note how I can disgree with him, without having to pepper my post explaining that disagreement, with personal digs at him,  nor getting emotional about some shit to try to gin up ire at him, or any number of the dozens ways you have been an asshole in this thread.


That is because I am a nice person and intellectually mature enough to understand that other people can reasonable disagree with me.


YOU, are such a closed minded zealot, that you cannot accept that other people can disagree with you. ANd when faced with it, feel compelled to attack them and obsessively argue about it, even decades later. 


You could really learn from me.


Ok, that was a lie. I know that you are not capable of learning.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> Thus, me and struth have different opinions on the matter. I respect his position and his right to have it,


That is exactly why you’re in a cult. The full blown cult that has now become the republican party with more than half iengulfed in Trumpism and now propagating the biggest political lie ever in American history. That Trump won the election.

You only have genuine respect for the opinions of your fellow cult members. You no longer have a requirement that their opinions need to be based in fact, specifically when life and death matters such as starting a preemptive war were at stake.

To have a cult, the republican party, the critical importance facts must lose relevance or it loses  members. And as the majority white Party in America it can no longer afford to lose another single white oriented member or voter.

There are times when you must respect “only“ the facts and condemn erroneous and false opinions that can do harm.

this is one of them and you are failing miserably.

struth is a liar when he repeats the lie that the WMDs were found and therefore the Iraq war was justified. He is a liar. You have no self respect when you say that you respect a liar.


----------



## Correll (Jun 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, me and struth have different opinions on the matter. I respect his position and his right to have it,
> ...




Except I clearly explained WHY I respect his opinion (in the vast majority of my post that you cut and did not address)


AND, I would and have been happy to disagree respectfully with people that oppose me on political matters. 


AND, I understand that people can disagree with me. And I understand that even if I disagree with their stated reasons, that does not mean that their stated reasons are not their reasons. 


NOR, does it mean that if I... "prove" to my satisfaction that their stated reasons are wrong, that that means that their stated reasons are now NOT their stated reasons. 


Are you getting any of this?


----------



## struth (Jun 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, me and struth have different opinions on the matter. I respect his position and his right to have it,
> ...


odd...people are in a cult if they respect other people, and their different opinions

that’s something i haven’t heard before


----------



## Correll (Jun 3, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Yeah, he's pretty bat shit crazy.


----------



## struth (Jun 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



baghdad bob is up to his old tricks again


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> r. THe point is that you are citing the fact that something was said, as PROOF THAT THAT MAKES IT A FACT.


No its already been explained. Biden said what he said in a Senate hearing - that is a fact. The fact is Biden publicly stated that he was not in favor of starting the invasion without a second resolution from the UNSC.that would authorize the use of force to remove SH. Biden said he saw no elevation of threat that made it necessary to start the invasion during the Spring of 2003.

The fact that Biden is on record opposing the invasion without UN support makes struth a liar when he says Biden supported invading Iraq in March 2003 without UN support.
struth is lying and I understand that you respect liars.


----------



## struth (Jun 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > r. THe point is that you are citing the fact that something was said, as PROOF THAT THAT MAKES IT A FACT.
> ...


hahaha xiden is on record voting to authorize the war and liberate iraq from saddam!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yeah, he's pretty bat shit crazy.


That is not a fact. SH was not hiding WMD from UN inspectors after 1441. struth claims SH was hiding WND because the invading army found them. struth is a liar. Why don’t you focus on the liars?


----------



## struth (Jun 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, he's pretty bat shit crazy.
> ...


Xiden's liberating military found them U.S. Intelligence Documents on Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq

"
U.S. troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011: report"​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2021)

struth said:


> ahaha xiden is on record voting to authorize the war and liberate iraq from saddam!


The vote was in October 2002 when there were no UN inspections in Iraq. The vote was correct. SH needed to allow the inspectors back on or be removed.

But Biden’s updated comments in February 2003 were  based in the new FACTS and REALITY that Saddam had allowed the inspectors in after the UNSC passed 1441 in November 2002.

If you were an honest person you would accept Biden’s updated position in 2003 based on the new reality UN Involvement and the ongoing indirections.

But because you are a liar you reject all reality that occurred after 1441 was passed. Its as if Biden voted for war in October 2002 and the next day March 17 2003, with Bush announcing he will start killing civilians while hunting for WMD IN Iraq.


----------



## struth (Jun 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > ahaha xiden is on record voting to authorize the war and liberate iraq from saddam!
> ...


who cares what he said after the fact 

the vote is on the record 

xiden wanted to liberate iraq and said ground forces were necessary 

we’ve been over this


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> IMO, the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.





struth said:


> U.S. troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011: report"


You need to listen to Correll because he is attached to reality (for the time being) on this one.

You are a liar because: 

ATE: 10/15/14 11:30AM (EDT)...​Saddam’s WMD: Technology Made In USA,Delivered by Rumsfeld​
Jim White Emptywheel.net Published October 15, 2014​
In a blockbuster story published last night by the New York Times, C.J. Shivers lays out chapter and verse on the despicable way the US military covered up the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Even worse is the cover-up of injuries sustained by US troops from those weapons, their denial of treatment and denial of recognition or their injuries sustained on the battlefront.​
Why was this covered up, you might ask? After all, if George W. Bush would joke at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner about looking under White House furniture for Saddam’s WMD’s, why didn’t the US blast out the news of the WMD’s that had supposedly prompted the US invasion?​
*The answer is simple*. The chemical weapons that were found did not date to the time frame when the US was accusing Saddam of “illegally” producing them. Instead, they were old chemical weapons that dated from the time Saddam was our friend. They come from the time when the US sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake Saddam’s hand and to grease the skids for Iraq to get chemical weapons to use in their war against Iran…​​THE  have posted evidence that Bush lied when he said this: 

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

There was no intelligence as Bush stated that led US trooos to the 1980s old and rusty shells. Bush had no intelligence on newer lethal weapons because they had no locations to find them. Its not Intel that affirms that WMD exist but cannot say where they are.

Bush lied about WMD and now you lie trying to salvage his legacy.. Bush lied and killed half a million Iraqis looking for WMD. You own it. W should have listened to Buden.,


----------



## struth (Jun 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.
> ...


I’m just providing the documents...from the Govt that the NY Times used as their source material for the Op-ed


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2021)

struth said:


> I’m just providing the documents.


Yeah but you failed to read them as you applied your fake headline about what finding rusty, leaky artillery shells from the 1980s in Iraq truly means.

I had to present you with the truth. 

You are a liar and Correll respects your ability to lie for the cult.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> IMO, the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.
> 
> Thus, me and struth have different opinions on the matter. I respect his position and his right to have it, I do not think less of him because of our disagreement



You have been able to ascertain the following fact:  (in your own words)
​“the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.” ..​​That statement is a verified, certified accurate and historically accepted fact. IT IS NOT an OPINION.

It is an accepted fact acknowledged by the Bush43,       Warmongers themselves including DIck Cheney and Colin Powell.

HERE is the NYTimes wording on the
same fact:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.​The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons​The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.​After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.​Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.​All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.​In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.​​​Do you see the link to the NYTimes report containing the statement of fact regarding the WMD rationale that Bush43 used to justify his war?

Here is what your Trump Supporter buddy struth     explains in direct reference to that link:


struth said:


> I’m just providing the documents...from the Govt that the NY Times used as their source material for the Op-ed



The government documents referenced in the NYTimes report contain thus FACT:
​​“The discoveries of these chemical weapons *did not support the government’s invasion rationale*.​
Yet here is the intent struth duly stated and posted with the NYTimes link and in response to my comments to  you about struth lies.
​“SH was not hiding WMD from UN inspectors after 1441. struth claims SH was hiding WMD because the invading army found them. struth is a liar. Why don’t you focus on the liars?​
Here is precisely struth ’s big lie despite having the truth available to him if he had read the NYTimes link he provided.



struth said:


> Xiden's liberating military found them U.S. Intelligence Documents on Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq
> 
> "
> U.S. troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011: report​




struth posted *“Xiden's liberating military found them” *with “them” being the WMD cited as justification for war and included a link to back up his claim that avtualled states the opposite FACT.

“The discoveries of these chemical weapons *did not support the government’s invasion rationale*.​
That is a lie. struth is a liar. &struth is not an opinionator.

Why do you respect a liar Correll if it is not that he is a comrade with you in the Trump cult?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> Saddam insanely destroyed the wmds, without documenting it.
> 
> Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at.


Would you not have preferred, as Biden suggested prior to the decision to invade, for the inspectors to have been on a fool’s errand instead of the US military being sent on one. At least with the inspectors being the fools half a million Iraqis didn’t have to die as the did when Bush43 decided to turn the US Military into an invasion army of fools.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> IMO, the motive of the UN inspectors was PEACE AT ANY COST, which made their statements not credible.


Why your objection to a motive of peace by the inspectors “at any cost” when you concurrently were not concerned about the threat of SH actually having the WMD that he was suspected of having?


Correll said:


> I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.


What do you mean “at any cost”




Correll said:


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



There should be no “cost” when your ‘nation building” project, was canceled because the inspectors peacenik motives caused Iraq to be declared in compliance with its disarmament obligations.,

What were the costs in your head at the time if the inspectors found Iraq to be in compliance? Why were you fine with that if there were serious costs?


----------



## struth (Jun 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.
> ...


I didn't post a NY TImes link.  I posted a document from the Govt. which highlights stockpiles of WMDs were found that Saddam was hiding


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 4, 2021)

struth said:


> Xiden's liberating military found them U.S. Intelligence Documents on Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq





struth said:


> I didn't post a NY TImes link.



Liar!      when I click on the link where you lied:   “Xiden's liberating military found them” I get this:










						U.S. Intelligence Documents on Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq (Published 2014)
					

American troops secretly reported finding more than 4,990 chemical munitions, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials and to heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 4, 2021)

struth said:


> I posted a document from the Govt. which highlights stockpiles of WMDs were found that Saddam was hiding


Where is the link you think you posted: 

Meanwhile read read the truth and let it sink into your thick lying skull:


Report: US troops in Iraq exposed to chemical weapons from Iran-Iraq War By STARS AND STRIPES Published: October 15, 2014​
Although claims that Iraq was still producing weapons of mass destruction just before the 2003 invasion of the country proved false, the U.S. military tried to cover up injuries to American troops who found chemical stockpiles from before the First Gulf War, according to a New York Times report.​Report: US troops in Iraq exposed to chemical weapons from Iran-Iraq War​Some troops were exposed to deadly mustard gas and sarin when they tried to destroy weapons, the Times reported Tuesday.​
The weapons were not one ones that the Bush Administration erroneously claimed Saddam Hussein was producing in violation of U.N. sanctions. Some of them were designed in America and sold to Iraq for use in the Iran-Iraq War, a conflict that left hundreds of thousands dead between 1980 and 1988. Amid an effort to keep the discoveries quiet, U.S. troops in the Iraq War were denied proper medical care and other troops were unknowingly put in contact with the chemical agents, according to the report​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> That bit where you whine about the expense of the war?





Correll said:


> That is demagoguery, of the type that you lefties like to whine about if Trump does it. Just fyi.



I am not saying anything Trump has not said about the waste of money on the horrible mistake President George W. Bush made when he decided on March 17, 2003 to start a Christian culture war in the Islamic nation of Iraq. The mistake you supported Being the cultural Christian warmonger that you are.


----------



## Correll (Jun 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, he's pretty bat shit crazy.
> ...



I explained that already. 

The bit where you pretend I didn't? That is you lying.


----------



## Correll (Jun 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.
> ...




Iraq was never our friend. Any source that would say it was, is an anti-American shit rag.


----------



## Correll (Jun 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > I’m just providing the documents.
> ...




Not, do you believe that all differences of opinion means that someone is lying?


----------



## Correll (Jun 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.
> ...




No one verified or certified my statement. That is crazy talk. It is hyperbole, you are spewing to justify attacking people who disagree with you.


----------



## Correll (Jun 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam insanely destroyed the wmds, without documenting it.
> ...



A very, very hypothetical question, as that is not how the policy question was framed at the time, because we did not know what we know now.


Hypothetical questions can be useful, in exploring details or possibilities of policies or situations, 

BUT, it is a practice that is very easy to abuse, in order to mis-characterize or confuse an issue. 

It requires a certain level of trust and/or credibility between the people having the discussion.

You been so very dishonest though out this thread.


----------



## Correll (Jun 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, the motive of the UN inspectors was PEACE AT ANY COST, which made their statements not credible.
> ...



I think that they would have been fine with lying to President Bush, if they thought the right lie would prevent war. 




NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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 said that the invasion was a costly gamble. 

I said nothing about "compliance" being a "costly gamble".  


Your question makes no sense. It seems to indicate that you completely failed to understand my clear and concise post.


----------



## Correll (Jun 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That bit where you whine about the expense of the war?
> ...




My point was that you are employing demagoguery in support of your position. 


Nothing in  your post addressed that. EVERYTHING, in your post was some form of deflection or distraction, with strong elements of anti-Christian bigotry.


Also, you being an asshole. 


My point stands. YOu are a hypocritical demagogue and a bigot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> Iraq was never our friend. Any source that would say it was, is an anti-American shit rag.



They didn’t say SH was our friend.  They reported a historical fact:  “They come from the time when the US sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake Saddam’s hand and to grease the skids for Iraq to get chemical weapons to use in their war against Iran…@ 

So you are a liar.

Why did we supply the regime with Chem warheads   If SH was never our friend.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> I said nothing about "compliance" being a "costly gamble".


I didn’t say you did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> I think that they would have been fine with lying to President Bush, if they thought the right lie would prevent war.


Don’t give a shit what you think. That’s not what you were asked.




Correll said:


> IMO, the motive of the UN inspectors was PEACE AT ANY COST, which made their statements not credible.



What “cost” was in your head if the inspectors managed before March 2003  to stop the impending war??



NotfooledbyW said:


> What do you mean “at any cost”



yes what did you mean by that expression?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > there has been inspections for years
> ...


He is not stupid as he pretends to be,he knows everything you say is true,he is a sockpuppet shill from Langley that has penetrated this site sent here to post lies and propaganda by his boss.


----------



## Correll (Jun 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq was never our friend. Any source that would say it was, is an anti-American shit rag.
> ...




From your post.

 "from the time Saddam was our friend."

This is you misrepresenting a fact, or getting it wrong.

By your own standards, you are now a "LIAR".


My point stands. 


Any source that would claim he was, is an anti-American shit rag.


----------



## Correll (Jun 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I said nothing about "compliance" being a "costly gamble".
> ...




You asked me what the costs were. Why, if you were not under the impression that that is what I said?


----------



## Correll (Jun 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I think that they would have been fine with lying to President Bush, if they thought the right lie would prevent war.
> ...




1. So, what are you asking?

2. I was not thinking of any cost associated with stopping the war. My discussion of cost was in the context of the war. You seem to be hinting at some point, without actually making it. GET TO THE FUCKING POINT.

3. It is a common phase. I dismiss your pretense that you do not understand it. If you have a point to make, just fucking make it. Stop with the stupid ass games.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> No one verified or certified my statement.


 I didn’t say anyone did. Why the distraction from the fact that Iraq was not hiding WMD from inspectors in MARCH and none were found by invading Christian culture forces. struth lied.


----------



## Correll (Jun 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > No one verified or certified my statement.
> ...




Did he? YOUR link stated that the WMDs WERE found, they were just not the ones that Bush wanted to find so they covered it up. 

See, you are trying to oversimply the issue, so that you can say "FACT" and then demonize and thus marginalize your current enemies. 


BUT, these are complex historical issues. Struth is technically right, WMDs, were found. His OPINION on the matter, is valid and is justified. It is not a "lie" or "faith" or any of the dismissive slurs that you have been throwing around like crazy. 

You are the one that is emotionally invested in this issue. You are the one with the confused and incoherent position on the issue. 


It is interesting to me that you have not asked the most obvious and important question of the Iraq War.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> BUT, these are complex historical issues. Struth is technically right, WMDs, were found. His OPINION on the matter, is valid and is justified. It is not a "lie" or "faith" or any of the dismissive slurs that you have been throwing around like crazy.



when you’re forced to say he was “technically right“ I know that you know he’s a liar. It makes you an accessory after-the-fact. You’re a liar. There’s no other way to describe you.

struth is a liar because he directly said that the old rusty corroded unusable  chemical warheads where the WMD that was used to justify the war. He’s a liar because he posted a link that referred to that fact and whereas no one accepts that those were the WMD that were used to justify the war.


----------



## struth (Jun 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > BUT, these are complex historical issues. Struth is technically right, WMDs, were found. His OPINION on the matter, is valid and is justified. It is not a "lie" or "faith" or any of the dismissive slurs that you have been throwing around like crazy.
> ...


i never said they were the “WMD that was used to justify the war” - you are a liar 

geez baghdad bob...are things this hard up after your murderous boss was hung that you have to go around on message boards  tossing out your propaganda?  You couldn’t of found a job for another horrible leader?  oh wait...you did, Xiden!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

struth said:


> i never said they were the “WMD that was used to justify the war” - you are a liar



YES YOU DID it’s in writing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is not a fact. SH was not hiding WMD from UN inspectors after 1441.





struth said:


> Xiden's liberating military found them U.S. Intelligence Documents on Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq
> 
> U.S. troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011: report"





struth said:


> Xiden's liberating military found them U.S. Intelligence Documents on Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq
> 
> U.S. troops found nearly 5,000 abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2011: report"





struth said:


> i never said they were the “WMD that was used to justify the war” - you are a liar



W said this to justify the war that he decided to start on March 17, 2003.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.​​
Your direct  response to my post where I said SH was not hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors was:

“Xiden's liberating military found them”.

YOU are a liar. And now you’re lying that you never said it.

YOU lied, you’re a liar because you said the US military found “them“ which was a direct reference and is directly linked to my statement where the “them“ was a referral to the WMD that  W said what the reason it was necessary to start that war on March 17, 2003. That would be known as what W used to justify starting his war.


You lied because in our ongoing discussion your reference to “them” as WMD used to “justify war” was not about old leaky rusty corroded artillery warheads from the 1980s.


----------



## struth (Jun 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > That is not a fact. SH was not hiding WMD from UN inspectors after 1441.
> ...


the justification. for war is outlined in Xiden authorization. law...there are a number of reasons. 

and yes WMDs were found as a i stated...and what was reported 

stop lying


----------



## struth (Jun 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > i never said they were the “WMD that was used to justify the war” - you are a liar
> ...


show me


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

struth said:


> the justification. for war is outlined in Xiden authorization. law...there are a number of reasons.
> 
> and yes WMDs were found as a i stated...and what was reported


 



There are is only 1 reason why Bush determined it was necessary to start a war on March 17 2003.  Its here: 

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.


You said the US military found them. You are a liar.


----------



## struth (Jun 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > the justification. for war is outlined in Xiden authorization. law...there are a number of reasons.
> ...


sure that was certainly a justification...and xiden had authorized him to use force


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

struth said:


> sure that was certainly a justification..


So where are the rusty old 1980’s WMD artillery shells in the authorization? You lied. Are you saying you agree that the Bush warmongers admitted they did not find the WMD they said  was being hidden and were the justification for the war?


----------



## struth (Jun 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > sure that was certainly a justification..
> ...


they didn’t know they existed...saddam was hidding them, how would they have known to spell them out specifically? geez


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

struth said:


> they didn’t know they existed...saddam was hidding them,


That’s why Bush was lying. W accused SH of hiding usable combat ready WMD stockpiles that W didn’t know exactly where they were located. He didn’t disclose suspected sites to the 1441 inspectors. 

SH was not hiding the old shells - most of them  were on a scrap pile at the Muthanna State Establishment compound, the center of Iraqi chemical agent production in the 1980s. The inspectors knew they were there - so how do you know W’s warmonger team did not know there were old rusty corroded artillery shells left over from Iraq’s war with Iran two decades prior to the 2003 invasion? How do you know? You must be lying again.

In any case those were not the “most lethal weapons ever devised” being hidden that W claimed made war a necessity.

W is a liar just like you.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.


----------



## Correll (Jun 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > BUT, these are complex historical issues. Struth is technically right, WMDs, were found. His OPINION on the matter, is valid and is justified. It is not a "lie" or "faith" or any of the dismissive slurs that you have been throwing around like crazy.
> ...




You are trying to over simply a complex issue. Because all you really want to do, is smear  your enemies, like a monkey throwing poo.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 6, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...



Corell.  Is that the best you've got? 
You were conned also.  You're not real quick at this game.


----------



## Correll (Jun 6, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




he does shit like that all the time, where he makes an assumption, and then judges you based on the shit he made up, and then attacks you based on the voices in his head.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> where he makes an assumption,


I have made no assumptions. struth is a liar and the best you could do was say he was “technically”  correct.

struth adds more lies saying SH was hiding the old shells too. He is a liar: 

This was public knowledges prior to the stupid invasion that was based on a lie.

U.N. destroying mustard gas shells Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Posted: 10:02 AM EST (1502 GMT)​​*The U.N. inspectors stressed at the time that the ammunition was expected to be there and not a sign of an active chemical weapons program.*​​Previous inspection teams destroyed thousands of chemical weapons shells and agents at al-Muthanna, according to U.N. officials.​​CNN.com - U.N. destroying mustard gas shells - Feb. 12, 2003​​Al-Muthanna, which was heavily bombed during the 1991 Gulf War, was once Iraq's chief production center for chemical and biological weapons, producing agents such as anthrax, mustard gas and the agent that causes botulism.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> lol!! "Knocking down" my beliefs of then, e


That is not what I said was being knocked down. You are a liar.




NotfooledbyW said:


> Knocking down your lies about what happened back then.”



Your lies are a current problem.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> he does shit like that all the time, where he makes an assumption, and then judges you based on the shit he made up, and then attacks you based on the voices in his head.


I notice you did not attempt to refute, challenge, or directly question anything I have said.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What gave you the moral authority to abort half a millions lives to force democracy on the people of Iraq?





Correll said:


> Saddam's failure to fulfil his obligations under the ceasefire agreement.



Was the ceasefire agreement made with you?


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > where he makes an assumption,
> ...


if he wasn’t hiding them...why were they hidden??  haha


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > where he makes an assumption,
> ...




You seem confused by my use of "technical".  









						Definition of TECHNICAL
					

having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject; marked by or characteristic of specialization; of or relating to a particular subject… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				




"3a*: *based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation"


"Technically true" seems to be the type of true that you would really like, based on your aspergers style of reasoning, when you aren't just... raving. 


I'M that one that should have a problem with it. And I do, in that I don't agree with it, nor is it the type of analysis I am using, or generally use. 


You seem to be pretending that "technical" means, "not really".


You are trying of oversimplify and I am not letting you do that. 


Having a tantrum will not change that.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > lol!! "Knocking down" my beliefs of then, e
> ...




Nope. You are the liar here. You have constantly been calling differences of opinion "lies" and then judging people AS THOUGH THEY AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, and then building up fantasies about what that means, and then attacking people based on your fantasies.


AND considering your username, this is very important to you.



AND, you are a hypocrite about it, for when I did the same to  you with regards to Lincoln, you rejected your logic and rules when applied to a different President, for reasons that you were not clear about.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > What gave you the moral authority to abort half a millions lives to force democracy on the people of Iraq?
> ...



Yes.  Obviously by context.  Are you playing stupid?


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Invading a country because you are looking for nonexistent WMDs?? 
Bush finally admitted there were NONE. Why do you think the Brits went to so much trouble to SELL the war in 1998 with Operation Mass Appeal? They spent 3 years demonizing Saddam and Iraq in the press... propagandizing their position with rumors and speculation.

Talk about a witch hunt.. Didn't you catch on with the Booze Wars in KSA when the Brits were carbombing themselves and got caught?


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Geez man, it's like talking to a five year old....we know all the reasons...numerous reasons, that Xiden and company outlined for taking out Saddam...WMDs were one of those reason...and nonexistant?  I have highlighted, that somewhere found. 

I am sure the Brits were just as concerned in 1998, Xiden and Clinton were as well..hence why they made it US policy in 1998 to overthrow Saddam


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Not, like most liberals, start out from the position that AMERICA IS WRONG, and then rationalizes and spins or makes up facts, until he can create a narrative that supports his conclusion.


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...




The thing that set all this crap in motion was a telethon that raised 10s of millions overnight for the Palestinians.. As soon as that happened in 2000 the MI6 began the booze war bombing trying to implicate the Palestinians.. So the Brits got caught blowing each other up and the propaganda to depose Saddam went  into overrive.


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



America was wrong.. Every American in the ME knew it.. Oilmen, diplomats, historians, Arabs, Europeans and weapons inspectors all KNEW America was wrong.. but Bibi demanded that Saddam be deposed and Syria be destabilized and isolated.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




You're not making any sense. That the brits didn't like Saddam either, is not really relevant to this discussion.


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



The Brits worked overtime to sell the war.. See Sir Derek Plumbly.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




You seem to be implying that that means something,  but you aren't actually making any points about it. 


As your statements stand so far, your post are not making any actual points.


Either you are actively and purposefully just trying to put out so "spin", or you don't even know how to... craft a clear assertion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> A very, very hypothetical question, as that is not how the policy question was framed at the time, because we did not know what we know now.


What planet were you living on at the time? Surely not earth. That is exactly what the policy question  was at time. It was  W’s policy to exhaust all peaceful means to disarm Iraq. All of Iraq’s neighbors including the Vatican opposed war after 1441 when SH was cooperating with inspectors.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


yep lots of countries dislike saddam and wanted him gone.  Tends to happen when you are a murderous dictator


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Just Israel. Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions .. He was NO threatt to anyone. ALL the  Arab states advised against the invasion.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...



yeah that’s it...a telethon...


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > A very, very hypothetical question, as that is not how the policy question was framed at the time, because we did not know what we know now.
> ...




Sorry, it's been several days, and I'm not going to comment on the exact wording of a question that you cut from the thread. 

By now, you "had to know" that, so you choose to not get an answer.

THus, since I believe that, I will not assert that it is a fact, like you like to do, with opinion.


IT IS A FACT THAT YOU WANTED TO NOT GET AN ANSWER.

Thus, we see that you are in the wrong on this question. And that you are a liar. And a blood thirst monster because obviously you supported all the bloody oppression that Saddam would have done, if he remained in power.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




He seems to be trying to say that since the Brits wanted Saddam gone, that that means that since Bush wanted Saddam gone too, that that makes Bush's motives... something...


Bush was a British agent? 


He is not making sense.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...



SO WHAT? YOU ARE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are trying to over simply a complex issue.



@struth’s lies are not complex at all. Its a simple straightforward fact that he is a liar



struth said:


> if he wasn’t hiding them...why were they hidden?? haha



They weren’t hidden, they were on junk piles waiting to be destroyed. They were not “the most lethal weapons ever devised” that W referred to here:


“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

Correll Does the following take away your excuses for not answering questions you do not wish to answer? You can always just plead the fifth you know.



Correll said:


> Saddam insanely destroyed the wmds, without documenting it



*“Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at.”*




NotfooledbyW said:


> That has got to be one of the stupidest warmonger arguments ever in the history of the world.
> 
> You must be the only warmonger in the entire world Making that absurd point..
> 
> ...





NotfooledbyW said:


> Would you not have preferred, as Biden suggested prior to the decision to invade, for the inspectors to have been on a fool’s errand instead of the US military being sent on one.





Correll said:


> very, very hypothetical question, as that is not how the policy question was framed at the time, because we did not know what we know now.





Correll said:


> Sorry, it's been several days, and I'm not going to comment on the exact wording of a question that you cut from the thread.


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...



No..The US and the British were committed to giving Bibi what he wanted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> You seem confused by my use of "technical".




No, actually you have a problem with the use of the phrase “technically correct”.  struth ’s Statements are misleading, half truths, and lies of omission all to be summed up as lying.

This is a stunt that he is pulling when we are trying to have a serious conversation here.

Technically correct: Another example would be "I've never lost at chess" when the speaker has never played a game of chess.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You are trying to over simply a complex issue.
> ...


Of course they were hidden...he didn't turn them over as the UN Resolution required...geez...


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Israel, like the rest of the world, didn't like Saddam either...most people don't like murderous dictators...but he was low on the list of issues for Israel, in comparison to Iran. 

Also Bibi wasn't PM of Israel when we fullfilled the Clinton Xiden policy of overthrowing Saddam...


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You seem confused by my use of "technical".
> ...


Nope, they are simply technically correct...ie correct.  

Why did your boss, the Murderous Dictator Saddam, violate the UN resolution and not turn these WMDs over?  Why did it take Coalition Forces to find them?


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Bibi's Clean Break Strategy specifically called for Saddam to be overthrown.. Top of his list.. The PNAC letter to Clinton was taken from it verbatim.. Now look at how many dual citizen signatories signe the letter and how many of them went to work in the Bush administration.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Cool, Xiden and Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 stated the same thing.  

What's your point?  Other then proving that a number of countries called for it


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



The Arab world was opposed to it and so were American expats in the ME. The French were opposed to it.

Look, dope. They had decided to invade Iraq no matter the intelligence, no matter the evidence and no matter what the Arabs, diplomats, oilmen, historians or Europeans said.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Cool story...i am not surprised some were opposed to it.  

Not sure what your point is. 

Yeah, Xiden and Clinton made the decision to overthrow Saddam in 1998, well before Bush was in office.  Not sure your point


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Lip service. The dual citizens were trying to trap Clinton.. Clinton wasn't that stupid and he already screwed up when he bombed the damned aspirin factory in Sudan based on idiot intelligence.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


huh?   Xiden who voted for the policy doesn't have "duel-citizenship" 

and Clinton was already bombing Saddam

Seriously, your old Jewish conspiracy theory against the world is as old as the 3rd Reich..

The Jews didn't make Saddam create WMDs, use them, invade countries, ignore UN resolutions, murder, torture and rape his own people....just stop already, I am sure you can find some National Socialist website to spread your racist theories


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> ignore UN resolutions


SH was not ignoring UN Resolution 1441 when W decided to ignore UN Resolutions on March 17 2003 when W decided entirely on his own to lie through his teeth and kill half a million Iraqis 4474 American soldiers and waste $5 trillion dollars when he said:  

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.​
Biden was not in on that decision. He opposed it as I and six out of ten (the informed and Intelligent) Americans did. We were never fooled by W’s egregious lie.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You are trying to over simply a complex issue.
> ...





I don't know that in the formal authorization for war, that Bush defined the wmds he was looking for, or how specifically he did so.


As far as I know, the shells mentioned might very well have met that stated goal of the authorization for war. 


The question then is, do you go with the letter of the authorization or the intent of the writer or the understanding of the voters.


Not, you seem to be a LETTER type of person. Me? I'm more a spirit or intent guy. 


If you want to find and post the text of the authorization for discussion purposes, I will take a look at it, and we can discuss it.


I won't do it, because I don't care and it might take some time or even be somewhat difficult to find. 



We both know that if Bush was smart enough to use vague language in the "letter" of the Authorization, that you will suddenly become a supporter of the "INTENT" or understanding of the voters, 


and if he happened to be specific about which wmds to be found, suddenly you will become a supporter of the LETTER, option.


You are not a good faith debater. You are dishonest and  you thus have no credibility, either way.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...




It is silly to think THe George W. Bush did not have his own motives.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You seem confused by my use of "technical".
> ...




And it thus would be TRUE.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




So what? What is your point? YOu are not saying anything. 

DO you think saying "JEW" a lot means you are winning the argument?


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...




He seems to think that showing that some jews were for something, is the same as proving that it was a bad idea and/or that anyone that also supported it, was a "jew lover" or some such...thing.


BUT, he doesnt' want to say so, because we can easily refute such bigotry.


And now he will pretend that that was NOT what he was saying. BUT, note, he won't say what he really was saying.


Because it is what he was saying.


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



Has NOTHNG to do with Jewish people.. It has to do with Bibi and European Zionism. They killed Rabin, remember? And they hate the J Street Jews. ,


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




So....you still having made any real points.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> And it thus would be TRUE.


Intentionally misleading to give the sanctity of truth to a giving a false impression is still a lie.


Why did struth come to what you and I believe?



struth said:


> i never said they were the “WMD that was used to justify the war”



What was the significance of bringing the old corroded shells up if finding them had nothing to do with justifying the war.

He is admitting that he never played chess so why did he mention that he never lost playing it. It’s a lie - since we don’t need comedians trying to justify the lies that killed half a million innocent Iraqis for nothing they did against us.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And it thus would be TRUE.
> ...




Because it fulfills the letter of the authorization. 

You've been a real stickler for precise wording up until now. Suddenly, you switch, to more a big picture, intent kind of guy, when it becomes convenient. 


That is an intent to deceive on your part.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And it thus would be TRUE.
> ...


hahaha

I never said they justified the war...you said I said that...you lied.

There were numerous reason to justify the war, outlined in Xiden  authorization, as well as Xiden and Clinton's law making it US policy to overthrow Saddam

The fact Saddam had WMDs, and was hiding them is just yet another reason


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




What was it? Ten? 14? I know it was a lot of reasons.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> the justification. for war is outlined in Xiden authorization. law...there are a number of reasons.
> 
> and yes WMDs were found as a i stated...and what was reported



What WMD’s were found? Old corroded unusable artillery shells on a scrap heap were not considered WMD when they were found. they were considered junk. So you are a liar.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > the justification. for war is outlined in Xiden authorization. law...there are a number of reasons.
> ...




What they were "considered" when they were found is irrelevant. 


What they ARE, is what is relevant.


That you would try to spin the answer like that, so dishonesty, is you admitting that you have to lie to defend your position.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> The fact Saddam had WMDs, and was hiding them is just yet another reason



You are a liar. Saddam did not have WMD hidden from 1441 inspectors. Your lie is calling old corroded artillery shells WMD.

You are also lying when you say there were other reasons besides active new WMD being hidden from 1441 inspectors that justified war.

Justifucation for the war had to be based on a threat such as SH trying to hide real WMD. It could be because he gassed the Kurds twenty years earlier.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The fact Saddam had WMDs, and was hiding them is just yet another reason
> ...



The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> What they were "considered" when they were found is irrelevant.


You are a liar and you cheapen language. You do not get to decide what is relevant and what us not.

If it were true that old corroded junk were ‘considered’ the WMD Bush killed half a million Iraqis to find he would have no sickening feeling and no reason to be angry because Lyin’ struth said we  found them.

2010: But Mr Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.​
George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack​
 "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."​


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What they were "considered" when they were found is irrelevant.
> ...




I do get to decide what is relevant or not, if I can back it up. 


As I did. Which you cut. My point stands. 


Your little trick where you twisted the topic from what they were, to what they were considered by some other people at a certain time, is, as I said, the type of "moving the goal post" dishonestly you get from someone who knows they have to lie to defend their position.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What they were "considered" when they were found is irrelevant.
> ...


he certainly expected to find more


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


it’s what baghdad bob does


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > The fact Saddam had WMDs, and was hiding them is just yet another reason
> ...


then why were these found?  if they weren’t hidden they wouldn’t of had to be found


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


it was a long long list...


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Bibi wasn’t in office when Xiden authorized Bush to use military force


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > ignore UN resolutions
> ...


sure he was...geez we went over this 

the UN said he was in violation...heck we found WMDs he was hiding

Baghdad Bob...you lost


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again.



It was the sole basis to confront and launch. Bush agreed to 1441 whether you like it or not - and inspectors had one task - to determine if Iraq was in compliance with his ceasefire agreement with respect to WMD  and WMD’s alone.

W cited no other reason to invade Iraq and remove SH from power all made clear in his public statements all the way through March 10 2003 when he was still holding out that a diplomatic solution could be made.

Its clear - W stated with all clarity that he had not, as of MARCH 6, decided to remove SH from power and would not do so if SH was disarmed under 1441 Rules.  1441 was about WMD. IT WAS NOT ABOUT any other terrible thing that SH ever did.

You are a liar and W confirms that fact.

BUSH43 March 6 2003  “I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully,* this can be done peacefully.*​
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​
Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will *disarm* and/or leave the country.”​


----------



## surada (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Clean Break Strategy was written for Bibi in 1996.. That kind of ruthless, ugly, grasping ambition doesn't go away.. Remember, Bibi began threatening Iran in 1992.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again.
> ...


no it wasn’t!  geez Bob!  read Xiden’s Authorization for the Use of Force...read his Iraq Liberation policy....there were numerous reasons!  the fact he was hiding WMDs is merely one proven justification. but certainly not the only reason to liberate Iraq from your boss


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> the UN said he was in violation


After 1441 - when where who said that? you are a liar.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Hahaaa well he was a little late to the party Iran had been threatening and funding terrorist to kill his country since 1979!

anyway, i thought we were talking about the Iraq War?  Xiden didn’t authorize that until 2002


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > the UN said he was in violation
> ...


read the inspectors report and testimony that i have already provided


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> .there were numerous reasons!


You are lying same as Correll:

It was the sole basis to confront and launch. Bush agreed to 1441 whether you like it or not - and inspectors had one task - to determine if Iraq was in compliance with his ceasefire agreement with respect to WMD and WMD’s alone. No other reason .

W cited no other reason to invade Iraq and remove SH from power. He made it all perfectly clear in his public statements all the way through March 10 2003 when he was still holding out that a diplomatic and peaceful solution could be made.

Its clear - W stated with all clarity that he had not, as of MARCH 6, decided to remove SH from power and would not do so if SH was disarmed under 1441 Rules. 1441 was about WMD. IT WAS NOT ABOUT any other terrible thing that SH ever did.

You are a liar and W confirms that fact.

*BUSH43 March 6 2003 *“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country


struth said:


> read the inspectors report and testimony that i have already provided



I did - no where does it says that Iraq violated 1441 and the process of disarming Iraq should be abandoned.

Iraq was in violation until such time that inspectors decide that he was not. Then ongoing monitoring was being set up to jast forever if need be.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again.
> ...





"Confront and launch"? wtf does that mean? 


Your claims about ALL of his statements during a certain period of time, twenty years ago, are irrelevant and dismissed.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

surada said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




What does any of that have to do with ANYTHING?


You are not making any sense.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > .there were numerous reasons!
> ...



Sorry the Use of Authorization that Xiden voted for outlines the justifications.  

regards...saddam was hiding wmds 

Bob you lost


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


when did baghdad bob ever make sense?  next he’s gonna tell us Saddam actually won!


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > .there were numerous reasons!
> ...




It is irrelevant that the inspectors had no other task. 

Why would you even mention that, unless you were trying to distract from all the other reasons listed?

DISHONESTLY.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


he makes excuses for all the rape, murder, torture of his boss...not to mention invasions of other nations 

Bob loves his boss


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




It's like....

I don't even know. It seems he is engaged in a conversation that is only sort of related to anything going on here. 


TANDEM PLAY. That is what he is doing. Until babies learn to play with others, they play, near other babies, but they don't yet understand how to play WITH other babies.


Odd to see it in a supposed adult, but, it does sort of explain his behavior.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




He loves to wallow in the emotion of the loss of hte war, but he just dismisses the human cost of Saddam being in power, or his wars.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


at least he isn’t blaming the Jews like the other clown


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> "Confront and launch"? wtf does that mean?



“Confront” was the decision in October 2002 to build up 250,000 troops on Iraq’s borders to force SH to allow inspectors in or face a US UK invasion to remove SH from power.

I fully agreed with “Confront”

“Launch” was the decision to invade called Shock abd Awe that was made on MARCH 17 2003 based on W’s BIG lie that there was no doubt Iraq was hiding WMD from 1441 inspectors. BECAUSE of THE FACT known at the time that   SH was reported proactively cooperating with inspectors I did not support “LAUNCH” as did six out of ten Americans including Joe Biden.

President Discusses Beginning of Operation ... - George W. Bush White House Archives

March 22, 2003 ... And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction,


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "Confront and launch"? wtf does that mean?
> ...


your boss is dead 

he had it coming.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> He loves to



Do you have time to respond by confronting my facts by presenting your own:

This a fact:

“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.​
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​
Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”​
IF the WMD threat went away because Iraq was   declared disarmed peacefully under 1441 inspections of WMD on March 16, 2003 as Bush stated then what does Bush cite as justification and necessity of war on March 17 2003?

struth do you have an answer to that question?


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He loves to
> ...


would have been nice if your boss would have cooperated with inspectors and turned those wmds he was hiding over


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "Confront and launch"? wtf does that mean?
> ...




If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case, then focusing solely on the hunt for the wmds, in the timing of the war, is misleading at best. 

If I was you, i would call you a liar for that, cut and paste a bunch of unrelated shit, wax poetic about some emotional shit and then attack you personally, and assert my opinion as though it was fact a couple of times.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> would have been nice if your boss would have cooperated with inspectors and turned those wmds he was hiding over


Instead of repeating those lies it would be nice if you explained how there could be any other reason or justification for war since W stated very clear that there would be no decision to start a war if Iraq was disarmed of WMD peacefully.


“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.​​President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​​Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”​
If it is not about WMD There is no other reason for war. Bush makes it clear the invasion was about WMD and no other reason would cause him to do it.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > would have been nice if your boss would have cooperated with inspectors and turned those wmds he was hiding over
> ...




"Not decided" is not the same as "would be no decision".


YOu have lied again. Please pretend that I reacted as you would have, and posted a whole bunch of meaningless shit along with the point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case,



You cannot “know” that the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMD because the only one person who is responsible for that  case specific decision .... tells you clearly that the opposite is true.

He tells you right here: 

“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.​
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​
 Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”​​If Bush had made the case on March 6 2003  that any other case for war brought about the necessity of war this statement in reality would make no sense whatsoever. The decision could have been made when Bush was still a drunkard.

But on March 6 Bush explains exactly the only ONE reason that he would decide to start a war - that was WMD being hidden from those 1441 inspectors.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case,
> ...




The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one.

Your claim that we cannot know the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of WMDs, is nonsense, because the case for war is a matter of public record. 


It is not a matter of Bush's opinion, especially his opinion at a later date.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> "Not decided" is not the same as "would be no decision".



Yes. W said he had ‘not decided’ that war was necessary on March 6 2003. And what was the “only”  reason’ looking ahead’ that he explicitly gave in that statement  that would cause him to make the decision  to launch a Blitzkrieg with Shock and Awe on March 17. 2003.

“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.​
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​
Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”​​
Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.??  

What can be done peacefully?

bring the Kurds he gassed back to life peacefully.

Nation build Iraq peacefully?


insert other cases for war - that make no sense.

ONLY ....

Hopefully, disarming Iraq of WMD through 1441 inspections can this be done peacefully

....WORKS.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "Not decided" is not the same as "would be no decision".
> ...




You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments.


You are welcome to do that, but you do not get to tell other people to do it too. THe formal authorization for war, is still a valid source to reference, for discussing the reasons for the war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one.



Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s *determination* as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization.

Bush *determined* there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. 


Jim Angle. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?​
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​
I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him.​
What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD 


Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror.​
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​
Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.​​​


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one.
> ...




A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations. 

Especially in the chaotic setting of a press conference. 


Mistakes and oversimplifications are... at best, common is such a setting.


Which is WHY you are focusing on them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments.



I’m not ignoring it. The AUMF was designed around the idea that it would force Iraq to let inspectors in and it worked.

The AUMF authorized W to make a determination in the future.

W revealed his determination that ONLY real WMD would justify war. No other reason rose to the level of necessity for war. And that makes sense.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments.
> ...




His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations.


Now youve dug yourself deeper into the Dumbass Hole you’ve been digging for years.

The AUMF didn’t set a policy to start a war for any of those reasons listed. when it was voted on it did not authorize disarming IRAQ of his WMDs Unless W determined that it was necessary in the future.

THAT is exactly the policy that W was discussing at the news conference on March 6. He was making his determination known to the world that he still preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case,
> ...


we know the reasons for war because xiden is on record voting for the use of force against Iraq....he and his coworkers listed all the justifications...including his prior vote making it US policy to overthrow Saddam


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization.


Did W have the authority granted to him within the authorization to use force if he determined to that an invasion of Iraq was not necessary?


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization.
> ...


what?   yea Xiden gave Bush authorization. to use force as he deemed necessary and outlined the numerous justifications for the war when doing so


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> what? yea Xiden gave Bush authorization. to use force as he deemed necessary and outlined the numerous justifications for the war when doing so




Did Xiden give Bush authorization to NOT use force IF he DETERMINED It waa not necessary Regardless of the outlined numerous justifications for the war because SH allowed the inspectors in and was cooperating with them? I was asking basically that of Correll perhaps he can better understand Trump speak coming from you


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > what? yea Xiden gave Bush authorization. to use force as he deemed necessary and outlined the numerous justifications for the war when doing so
> ...


sure, he gave him complete authority to do what he deemed necessary.

but he also made clear to liberate iraq, which was the policy of the US since he voted for it in 1998...ground forces were needed


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations.
> ...




You found an off the cuff remark that you think support your position and you are ignoring all other evidence or information. 


That is, just you being.... unreasonable. 


That is all that is.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> sure, he gave him complete authority to do what he deemed necessary.
> 
> but he also made clear to liberate iraq, which was the policy of the US since he voted for it in 1998...ground forces were needed


You are a liar because Biden did not authorize the use of ground forces to invade Iraq in 1998.

BE that as it may on March 6, 2003 W made  a public determination that the liberation of Iraq was not necessary if IRAQ WAS disarmed. The only case that would justify war in W’s determination was the case for continued possession of WMD.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > sure, he gave him complete authority to do what he deemed necessary.
> ...


nope he did in 2002


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization.
> ...



Don't know, don't care, at this point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> You found an off the cuff remark


Its not an off the cuff remark. W waiting to hear if Iraq was disarmed and and if he was in fact disarmed there would be no invasion. That’s a fact you cannot remove from reality.


----------



## Correll (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > what? yea Xiden gave Bush authorization. to use force as he deemed necessary and outlined the numerous justifications for the war when doing so
> ...




Trump?  What does Trump have to do with any of this?

You aren't making any sense.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You found an off the cuff remark
> ...


but he wasn’t...and we gave him more then enough time to do it.  Sorry your boss screwed up and got himself hung...actually i am lying, i am not sorry he’s dead


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> but he wasn’t...


But in reality he was. It was not SH who was. It was the president of United States who was lying. The overall point is W had no intention of invading Iraq other than on the basis that SH was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors. W did not invade Iraq to liberate it. The March 6 press conference makes that clear. W invaded Iraq because HE  suspected WMD was being hidden there.


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > but he wasn’t...
> ...


he wasn’t bessie they found wmds he was hiding and of course the inspectors retired and reported he wasn’t 

he has nearly a decade to comply he didn’t


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> Don't know, don't care, at this point.



if you do not care why did you bring this in to the conversation?

His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization.

 And now you say you don’t care if that authorization meant W could determine that an invasion of Iraq is not necessary if the WMD issue was resolved as he said he hoped it was going to be on March 6 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> he wasn’t bessie they found wmds he was hiding and of course the inspectors retired and reported he wasn’t


Is W lying here?


But Mr Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.
George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack

 "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."m


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know, don't care, at this point.
> ...


we all hoped your boss would have done the right thing...but heck murderous doctors rarely do


----------



## struth (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > he wasn’t bessie they found wmds he was hiding and of course the inspectors retired and reported he wasn’t
> ...


not at all...i expected to find more 

i am sure it bothered him


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 7, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> ...



Not only had Saddam absolutely no part in terrorism, but he was fighting terrorism against al Qaeda in Iraq, 
The group was founded by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 1999, and survived only because he used the NE no fly zone of the Kurds, so Saddam could not attack him.
Attacking Saddam was always wrong, illegal, and based on blatant lies.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 7, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Jets said:
> ...



Totally and completely wrong.
NEVER did Saddam ever have anything to do with terrorism, and he considered himself a loyal ally.
Just try to tell us one example of Saddam being associated with terrorism, and we can get the truth to you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> not at all...i expected to find more


Where did Bush say that we found any WMD

You are a liar


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 7, 2021)

struth said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...



All the inspectors said there were no WMD capabilities in Iraq.
The ONLY person who claimed there were besides the CIA, was Chalabi.
And he was a lying criminal wanted for bank fraud.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > what? yea Xiden gave Bush authorization. to use force as he deemed necessary and outlined the numerous justifications for the war when doing so
> ...



The determination of whether or not Saddam was a threat to the US was given entirely to Bush.
It is all his fault and no one elses.
However I still blame Hillary for giving him that power.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...


Holy fuck!  Are you brainwashed or what?   Saddam was spending millions of dollars on terrorism against Israel.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


Wow, are you fucking blind.


----------



## The Banker (Jun 7, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


That's No reason to go to war in Iraq.

I have no clue why you idiot republicans were so obsessed with your war in Iraq.  It was one of the biggest failures in US history.  Every single republican was 100% guns blazing, lets go to war in Iraq.  You retards loved the war in Iraq. Everyday you failures pumped the war in Iraq.  If you opposed the war in Iraq you were labeled a Traitor, by the GOP and Fake Foxnews.  Then we went to war in Iraq and Bush and the GOP totally fucked it up something fierce, then they crashed the economy.

The GOP is a total failure and embarrassment.  All of the major problems in America are a direct result of failed GOP policy.  The GOP has not had any success in the entire 21st Century.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case, then focusing solely on the hunt for the wmds, in the timing of the war, is misleading at best.



The case for the war was determined by W and it was solely on the basis of WMD. The hunt for WMDs began immediately following 1441 being passed. W’s timing for the war was based on the upcoming summer heat and he couldn’t wait till fall because by then the truth if no WMD was going to be out and W would have no case for war if he waited until the inspectors finished the Job in September.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The determination of whether or not Saddam was a threat to the US was given entirely to Bush.
> It is all his fault and no one elses.
> However I still blame Hillary for giving him that power.


I fully accepted hers, Biden’s and Kerry’s reason to vote yes on the AUMF.

In and before September 2002 the political scuttlebutt was that an invasion into Iraq was imminent. The Cheney wing had W’s ear.

We were at war with Iraq already as exemplified by the stepped up bombing of Iraq the entire summer of 2002.

The prevailing message out of the White House was an AUMF specific to Iraq was not necessary The 2001 War on Terror AUMF applied to IRAQ.

Then in September 2002 the breeze of peace began to blow up against the darker winds of war. The Powell talk was get UN backing mostly because Tony Blair couldn’t join the fight with the UN first trying to get the inspectors back into Iraq with the chance that SH will finally comply.

Bush gave a speech on OCT 7 in Cincinnati saying he wanted to avoid war but the only way that could happen was for Congress to give him the authority to invade if SH did not start cooperating.
​“Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.”​

That speech made the yes vote not a decision in favor of war any more than it made a guarantee of peace. But it was a better shot at giving peace a chance than ignoring the UN altogether as Cheney want W to do..

We will never know if Bush backed down if Blair couldn’t go without a UN resolution But I kne this - the AUMF got inspectors back in and they would’ve found no WMD and thus no invasion if Bush listened to Biden in February 2003 when he opposed invading Iraq before summer without full UN support through a second resolution.

No. But I am going to front-end guess it. 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.​


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 7, 2021)

The Banker said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Yeah, because we were at war with terror and those who promoted it.  That's no reason to go to war!

Stupid fuck.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 7, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Nonsense.
Saddam had absolutely nothing at all to do with any terrorism, ever.
But since Israel is a terrorist nation, I wish someone would do something about them.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 7, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



The main source of terrorism in the MIdeast was the US.
The way we attacked Iraq was through "Shock and Awe" which was a deliberate war crime of attacking civilian infrastructure, food, water, sanitation, and power.
Iraq was totally innocent, and we were totally guilty.


----------



## struth (Jun 8, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


the inspectors weren’t sure as they reported saddam wasn’t fully cooperating


----------



## struth (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > not at all...i expected to find more
> ...


when did i say Bush said that? why are you lying?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

struth said:


> when did i say Bush said that? why are you lying?


I didnt say that you were saying W said it.  The discussion is about Bush saying we found no WMD and your reply is that you thought we would have found more. When you say “found more” as if you missed the point that the most important person in the world who would be overjoyed if there  were reports of finding any trace of WMD in Iraq it would be W.

i asked you that question to find out if you think Bush said that we found some but hoped we found more. What you believe us of no use to humanity because you are a liar. 

Do you admit that Bush said we found no WMD abnd that you are a bold faced liar every time you say that any trace of WMD was found. Old rusty unusable artillery shells are not WMD. You are a liar when you say it because not even w will tell a lie like that. It too easy proven to be a lie for W I would guess.


----------



## struth (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > when did i say Bush said that? why are you lying?
> ...


all i know is we found some that saddam was hiding 

why was your boss hiding them and not turning them over?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

struth said:


> the inspectors weren’t sure as they reported saddam wasn’t fully cooperating


You are lying by omission because weeks prior to the start of Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe the inspectors reported full proactive cooperation. You cite inspectors from January who said cooperation on process was fully engaged. Cooperation on substance (attitude) was lacking.

You fail to cite that in February Blix reported proactive cooperation on substance as well  You are a liar.,


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

struth said:


> all i know is we found some that saddam was hiding


Did that knowledge come to you in a mystical vision because it did not come from physical and objective reality. You are a liar. Mysterious visions are not truth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> You were trying to make a point about MY support for a past policy, and when I answer you seriously and honestly, you pivot and make a "counter point" that the BUSH administration did not care about that.



Bush was not waiting to decide if the UN Inspectors were able to uncover proof that SH was making payments to families of suicide bombers after 1441 was passed.

How do you explain Bush telling reporters that he will make a determination that it will be necessary to invade Iraq as stipulated in the AUMF only on the basis of whether the IRAQ regime is not going to be disarmed peacefully. And on March 6 2003 Bush stated clearly he had not made a determination that war was necessary for any other reason than WMD. And that would include payments to suicide bomber families.

Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.​​President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​​Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community to convince him to disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.​​
That last statement will never fit in the context of reality at the time if W was to say:

“If he doesn't *stop making payments* to suicide bomber families, we'll disarm him.”

The 1441 inspections were not in regards to payments. It was never a justification for war.


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > but he wasn’t...
> ...




That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it.


----------



## struth (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Don't try to reason with Bob....


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know, don't care, at this point.
> ...




That is the way of people. A normal person will be willing to answer a question from a person, but an irrational person, perhaps with aspergers, will keep asking increasingly pointless questions and exhaust the patience of the normal person. 

Especially when the topic is decades old and the irrational person is focusing on minute and irrelevant details, for stupid and irrational reasons.


----------



## struth (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Remember you are dealing with Bagdad Bob...who once claimed you and I were in a cult because we dared to respect one another's different opinions.


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The case for the war was determined by W and it was solely on the basis of WMD.




Everything in that statement was wrong. 

1. The President does not determine the case for war, by himself. That is why we had a public debate on the issue. The nation as a whole took part of that debate and the authorization, that Biden voted for, was done by CONGRESS, with it's body of democratically elected representatives of the people.

2. AND, that authorization was NOT limited to WMDs


3. That you lie like this, does two things. ONE, it shows that you know you have to lie to defend your position, ie you know your position is wrong, and TWO, that nothing you say, can be given any credibility.



It is established that you are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it.


But his most timely reason for ‘doing something’
as he stated was tied to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 and all the related inspections activity as it was related to international law in regards to Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction.

 Is the above statement an accurate depiction of the facts.


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You were trying to make a point about MY support for a past policy, and when I answer you seriously and honestly, you pivot and make a "counter point" that the BUSH administration did not care about that.
> ...




You failed to address my point. You changed the topic in the middle of the discussion.

YOu are a dishonest troll.


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

struth said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




I'm not. I'm imagining a reader who is leaning left, and thinking "that not guy is making some sense, whoa wait a minute, he is not making sense, he is making a fool of himself, and that COrrel, is like an intellectual juggernaut, and probably tall and good looking".


(The left leaning reader solidified as a woman, half way though my post. )


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it.
> ...




"Most timely"? Not sure what you mean by that, but what it does not mean, is that you get to pretend that all the others reasons were not also in play.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> "Most timely"? Not sure what you mean by that, but what it does not mean, is that you get to pretend that all the others reasons were not also in play.




W’s reason for ‘doing something as he stated was tied to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 and all the related inspections activity as it was related to international law in regards to Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction.

Is the above statement an accurate depiction of the facts.


----------



## The Banker (Jun 8, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Again if you think the war in Iraq was good and successful, then you are flat out retarded.  You have proven yourself to be completely un-credible.


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "Most timely"? Not sure what you mean by that, but what it does not mean, is that you get to pretend that all the others reasons were not also in play.
> ...




"was tied"? Sure. Of course, it was never the sole reason as you are trying to pretend.

Two sentences and you will cut one, so that you can pretend I agreed with your point, and then you will build additional shit on top of that, and then attack me based on your lies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> "was tied"? Sure. Of course, it was never the sole reason as you are trying to pretend.




W’s reason for *invading Iraq* as he stated was tied to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 and all the related inspections activity as it was related to international law in regards to Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction.

Just to be sure. Is the above statement an accurate depiction of the facts.

Do you agree W said this regarding 1441 on March 6 2003:

Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.​​President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​
Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community to convince him to disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.​ 
What did W mean when he said “Saddam Hussein has *one last chance to disarm*.”?


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "was tied"? Sure. Of course, it was never the sole reason as you are trying to pretend.
> ...




And you did exactly as I predicted. You cut the majority of my post so that you could lie about what I said, by cutting important context. 


Though you did manage to restrain yourself from building upon top of your lies and then attacking me personally based on your inventions.

Good for you.


----------



## struth (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Remember when Bob got on TV and said the US forces were losing and not a single tank had enter Baghdad....while we saw and heard tanks on the TV screen?   It was epic propaganda.

Always remember that is who you are dealing with here


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

struth said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




From this point on, he doesn't get to say ANYTHING, and have it taken seriously. 


He says "water is wet" and I'm not going to accept it, except conditionally for discussion purposes only.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Two sentences and you will cut one, so that you can pretend I agreed with your point, and then you will build additional shit on top of that, and then attack me based on your lies.



*instead of answering a couple of valid questions you decided to lie:*



Correll said:


> And you did exactly as I predicted. You cut the majority of my post so that you could lie about what I said, by cutting important context.



You liar. *First you said.....* “Two sentences and you will cut one,” ......


*So I made sure I cited* “Both” *sentences*:

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o




o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o


*You are a liar. My post did not say that you* “agreed with” my point. *You are a liar.


I asked you to confirm something and I asked this;*

Do you agree W said this regarding 1441 on March 6 2003:

Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community to convince him to disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.

What did W mean when he said “Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm.”?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> He says "water is wet" and I'm not going to accept it, except conditionally for discussion purposes only.


Why won’t you answer the following? 

W’s reason for invading Iraq as he stated was tied to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 and all the related inspections activity as it was related to international law in regards to Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction.

Just to be sure. Is the above statement an accurate depiction of the facts?

Do you agree W said this regarding 1441 on March 6 2003?

Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community to convince him to disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.

What did W mean when he said “Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm.”?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. AND, that authorization was NOT limited to WMDs



Here it is. Do You agree this is the authorization?

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

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*



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.*

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force* the President shall*, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, *make available *to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate *his determination that --

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.*

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. The President does not determine the case for war, by himself.


as he determines      ..     as he determines
as he determines      ..     as he determines
as he determines      ..     as he determines



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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 --*



as he determines      ..     as he determines
as he determines      ..     as he determines
as he determines      ..     as he determines

to be necessary​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it.



Are you saying this?

That a sitting Christian US President focuses on one reason to invade a Muslim does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it.


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Two sentences and you will cut one, so that you can pretend I agreed with your point, and then you will build additional shit on top of that, and then attack me based on your lies.
> ...




Alright, I admit you did not cut it, you just responded as though it did not exist. 


Still, it is worth noting that that was an honest mistake on my part, caused by many days of you being a dishonest bad faith actor in this discussion. 

And of course,   you are holding consistent with assuming any mistake is a "lie", can ONLY be a "lie".


There is something really, really wrong with your brain.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 2. AND, that authorization was NOT limited to WMDs
> ...




Weird, why no link?


Try this one.  Mmm, 12 listed points. So many more than one. 









						Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]


Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
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.


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The President does not determine the case for war, by himself.
> ...




Different context. As you know. That is you being dishonest again.


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it.
> ...




I made a general statement about the way that  people make decisions. 


Why would you need to restate it, to limit it to a more specific case before making a point?


It seems all you really did there, was not really ask a question, but make a point that the "man" was a Christian, as though  that is a bad thing. 


YOu are a bigot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Different context.


What is different about the context:

1. The President does not *determine* the case for war, by himself.


The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he *determines* to be necessary and appropriate in order to --


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Different context.
> ...




Correct.  A general statement about how the "case for war" is made and a more specific sentence about how a certain requirement in regard to a specific task will be met. 


Completely different context. That you pretend to not know this, is just another example of your dishonesty.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Mmm, 12 listed points. So many more than one.



Just to be clear can we refer to the following list as “the whereas factors” that precede the paragraoh’s that define the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?
​​The Following is the actual text of Joint Resolution 114 - please note the whereas factors are not referred to as justifications for war in the  AUMF.

ACTUAL Text:

107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 2, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas.............

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
I have copied all the whereas factors that are not tied to 1441 or have anything to do with WMD.

Do you agree that this list is accurate and true?


----------



## Correll (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Mmm, 12 listed points. So many more than one.
> ...




No. If you want to make a point make it. Save your court room antics for an actual court room.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> No. If you want to make a point make it.


I am making it. First I’d like to get you to agree on some facts. What is wrong with that. Are facts only required in court rooms?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> A general statement about how the "case for war" is made and a more specific sentence about how a certain requirement in regard to a specific task will be met.




Just to be clear - this you say Is a general statement about how the "case for war" is made:
_The President does not determine the case for war, by himself._

And this you say is a specific sentence about how a certain requirement in regard to a specific task will be met. “_The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --“_

In the specific sentence the phrase “_as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”_ which      _“to be” _informs the reader that the determination to do the task of using military force in Iraq to remove the dictator was not determined on the date the AUMF was written and approved. The President is authorized by Congress to make the determination in the future. And in the future the President is expected to make the determination for the case for war by himself.

Is that true or is that false?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What did W mean when he said “Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm.”?


Correll I see it as W had made a determination that war is not inevitable and SH will remain the dictator of Iraq if “the WMD whereas factors” are resolved by Iraq being disarmed..

Is that a startenent of fact?


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > A general statement about how the "case for war" is made and a more specific sentence about how a certain requirement in regard to a specific task will be met.
> ...




Sorry,  your semantics game about policy from twenty years ago, is too boring for me to engage.


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > What did W mean when he said “Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm.”?
> ...




NOpe. It is a claim from a man about his beliefs. And it is  worth noting that the man in question, has been shown to be very dishonest and very emotionally invested in the issue.


So, the claim is not credible, and even if it was, your beliefs are based on your incredibly biased and emotional and warped perceptions.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is a claim from a man about his beliefs.


Actually the fact is when W says SH has been given one last chance to disarm it is one if the most publicized phrases used during the six months of the US and UK ramp up to war as it was based on the legal language enacted in the UNSC Resolution 1441:

8 NOVEMBER 2002

SECURITY COUNCIL
​SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)​08/11/2002​



Press Release
SC/7564
8 NOVEMBER 2002​
SECURITY COUNCIL

​SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)​08/11/2002​


Press Release
SC/7564​


When W expressed his belief in what 1441 offered to SH on March 6 2003, what dies the phrase “
FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY” actually mean  when you hear it.​If you do not wish to answer I do understand why.





__





						SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)  | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
					






					www.un.org


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It is a claim from a man about his beliefs.
> ...




So, you dropped the "as I see it"?

Why are you making a point about how " publicized" it was, as though that makes it more relevant than the formal text of the authorization for war?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you dropped the "as I see it"?


No I still want you to tell the readers on this forum  what W meant when he in fact on the historical record publicly stated on March 6 2003  in this excerpt
​Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has *one last chance to disarm. *He hasn't disarmed. And so we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.​​President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference​​Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community to convince him to disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him.​
So, Correll what did the phrase “one last chance to disarm” that was “publicized” widely throughout the entire world when W stated it mean as you see it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> Sorry, your semantics game about policy from twenty years ago, is too boring for me to engage.



Ahhhhhh the “semantics@ ruse strikes again!!!!! Very timely indeed.

I don’t see semantics being an issue here on the matter of the phrase “to be determined” referring to a determination to be made in the future. Do you?


In the specific sentence the phrase “_as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”_ which  _“to be” _informs the reader that the determination to do the task of using military force in Iraq to remove the dictator was not determined on the date the AUMF was written and approved. The President is authorized by Congress to make the determination in the future. And in the future the President is expected to make the determination for the case for war by himself.​
Is that true or is that false?


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, you dropped the "as I see it"?
> ...




You want my opinion on what Bush was thinking at that time, twenty years ago when he said those words?

IMO, he was going though the motions, because he did not think that Saddam would ever give up his WMDs.

He expected to see Saddam play games but never turn over the wmds, and thus that the invasion would happen in short order, Saddam would fall, a grateful Iraqi Nation would rise, as a democratic nation and ally of ours, in the War on Terror.

As it succeeded, with our support, it would become a beacon of a better way forward for the Muslim/Arab World(s), and log term, undermine Radical Islam as an idea.


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, your semantics game about policy from twenty years ago, is too boring for me to engage.
> ...




When you start talking about questions such a what "to be" informs the reader of,


you are certainly engaging in semantics. 


It is absurd for you to claim otherwise.


This is another example, not that any more are needed, that you are not a credible person.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> When you start talking about questions such a what "to be" informs the reader of,
> 
> 
> you are certainly engaging in semantics.



How so?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> You want my opinion on what Bush was thinking at that time, twenty years ago when he said those words?



No I’m just asking you politely what you think in your own words the phrase “final chance to disarm“ means. It’s not complicated. So why are  you making it so?


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You want my opinion on what Bush was thinking at that time, twenty years ago when he said those words?
> ...




What happened to the phrase "what he meant"? That is a question about his thoughts. 


Which is an odd discussion to have, when I have already posted the listing of the formal argument for support for authorization of military force. 


That you want to ignore the formal stated reasons, to focus on speculation about what a man neither of us have ever met, was thinking when he spoke twenty years ago, FROM TEXT of his words, 


is  you trying to avoid the Truth so that you can find shit to back up your faith based conclusions.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> What happened to the phrase "what he meant"? That is a question about his thoughts.


No. Actually I want to know what you think  he meant when he uttered the phrase last chance to comply.


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What happened to the phrase "what he meant"? That is a question about his thoughts.
> ...




And I told  you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> That you want to ignore the formal stated reasons, to focus on speculation about what a man neither of us have ever met, was thinking when he spoke twenty years ago, FROM TEXT of his words,



I am not asking what he was thinking or if he was lying when he said “final chance to comply”.. What does that phrase mean to you? Thats all.


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That you want to ignore the formal stated reasons, to focus on speculation about what a man neither of us have ever met, was thinking when he spoke twenty years ago, FROM TEXT of his words,
> ...




To me? It is empty going though the motions. I stopped paying attention to the details of it all, at the time, well before the end. 


That is what it means to me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> IMO, he was going though the motions, because he did not think that Saddam would ever give up his WMDs.
> 
> He expected to see Saddam play games but never turn over the wmds, and thus that the invasion would happen in short order, Saddam would fall, a grateful Iraqi Nation would rise, as a democratic nation and ally of ours, in the War on Terror.
> 
> As it succeeded, with our support, it would become a beacon of a better way forward for the Muslim/Arab World(s), and log term, undermine Radical Islam as an idea.





Correll said:


> And I told you.



Where in your above post do you explain what the phrase “last chance to comply” means in your own words.  What happens if Saddam complies? What dues given a “final chance” mean? It may be true that W was going through the motions so tell me going through the motions for what? What significant event happens if SH takes his final chance to comply and actually does comply.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is empty going though the motions. I stopped paying attention to the details of it all, at the time, well before the end.



When did you stop paying attention to the details? Why does that prevent you from telling us what it means when SH was given a final chance to comply. You didn’t have to be paying attention to details which contain facts to answer a simple question. What did it mean?


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, he was going though the motions, because he did not think that Saddam would ever give up his WMDs.
> ...




IMO, it was meaningless going though the motions. 


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


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It is empty going though the motions. I stopped paying attention to the details of it all, at the time, well before the end.
> ...




I did tell you. It meant nothing. 


imo.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


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


That’s a lie or as you say you didn’t pay attention to details.

that’s what the inspectors were making plans to resolve when Bush decided to kill Iraqi civilians to resolve it with violence instead of peace.

But still believing as you do what did it mean when the entire world agreed through 1441  and knew that SH was given a FINAL Chance to comply?

Does SH remain dictator of Iraq when verified  in compliance by UNMOVIC and IAEA inspection chiefs?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> I did tell you. It meant nothing.


How could it mean nothing. All words have meaning when used in documents regarding issues of war and peace in an international scale.





NotfooledbyW said:


> SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)



That meant nothing?


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




THey were planning to resolve it?

lol!!! How do you "resolve" the fact that something happened and was not documented?

LOL!!! 

Saddam had years when he could have chosen policy to de escalate tensions with the US, instead he kept fucking around. 

Pointing to the last few weeks and playing sematic games over who said what,  is actively and purposefully missing the forest for the trees.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> THey were planning to resolve it?



Do you accept the fact that they were planning to resolve it?


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > THey were planning to resolve it?
> ...




i accept that you say that they said that they were planning to resolve it.


But, as I have repeated explained, I find neither you nor them to be credible.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> Saddam had years when he could have chosen policy to de escalate tensions with the US, instead he kept fucking around.


Not after the AUMF and 1441 passed in October and November 2002 which both included potential resolution of the WMD issue through peaceful means by offering SH a final opportunity to comply with his disarmament obligations to the United Nations Security Council.

SH offered in DECEMBER to let the CIA come in to verify the non-existence of WMD and Colin Powell said Iraq was complying with 1441 at the end of December as well. That is not fucking around.


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam had years when he could have chosen policy to de escalate tensions with the US, instead he kept fucking around.
> ...




Conflict does not work like that. You don't agitate for years, adn then at the last second throw up your hands and suddenly the hostility and conflict you have bene create, disappears. 


In the real world, brinksmanship games are considered dangerous FOR A REASON. 


Saddam should have learned his lesson in the first Gulf War. But he insisted on continuing to provoke and antagonize the US.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> i accept that you say that they said that they were planning to resolve it.
> 
> 
> But, as I have repeated explained, I find neither you nor them to be credible.



Regardless of your non-facts based observations, why were they planning to resolve it? What was the purpose? What is the relationship to this statement?


Jim Angle.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him.


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > i accept that you say that they said that they were planning to resolve it.
> ...




I tell you that I don't trust that they were serious in their claim to be resolving the issue, and you want me to speculate on their motives for resolving the issue? lol!!!

 i have told you that my belief is that their motives were to stop the coming war. THE details of that, these silly intricate games you like to play, are irrelevant.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> Conflict does not work like that.


I am citing strictly facts and the public record.

The United States of America through its President George W. Bush agreed to give SH a final opportunity to comply.

This is a fact. It really matters despite 12 years  plus of atrocious behavior by the dictator in Iraq he was given (W included) one last final opportunity to comply 

PRESS RELEASE
SC/7564
8 NOVEMBER 2002

SECURITY COUNCIL
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)​08/11/2002​
​Press Release
SC/7564​

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)


What does final opportunity to comply mean?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


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



Ahhhhhhhhhh.  Stop the coming war.


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Conflict does not work like that.
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




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

Are you getting to a point any time soon?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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. 





Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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 (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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




Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


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





NotfooledbyW said:


> 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.





Correll said:


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





Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.
> ...




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 (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




Bullshit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 9, 2021)

WHAT ARE YOU CALLING BULLSHT?


----------



## Correll (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > YES, I stand by my previous statements.
> ...




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 (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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?



Correll said:


> 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.



Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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 (Jun 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Jun 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Jun 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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




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

Sematic nonsense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 10, 2021)

Correll said:


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


It is obvious that facts that upset the false reality that you have created are always called irrrelevant. It is a fact that 1441 does not deal with any of the “whereas factors“  in the AUMF Iraq 2002. those that were unrelated to WMD disarmament we’re never meant or intended to be justification for the war.  It is impossible that they were because of the “final opportunity” offering to the regime in Iraq.

Some of the “whereas factors“ had absolutely nothing to do with enforcing United Nations Security Council resolutions with regard to Iraq.

An example is the “whereas factor” Regarding the 1998 establishing democracy Iraqi liberation act was passed in the United States Congress no United Nations Security Council.

W within the AUMF was restricted to “enforcing all relevant Security Council resolutions against Iraq“.

You’ve been living and telling a big Iraq lie for 18 years - The one that Iraq could be invaded based on the argument installing a democracy would make the world a better place without Saddam Hussein. The argument that without SH in the world it is a better place is true. But the launch of war solely on that basis has no merit and it was never authorized by the United States Congress. So you are a liar

Because SH was offered a final opportunity to comply and that dealt solely and inarguably with compliance on his disarmament issues there would not have been a war to nation build had SH complied or have been verified complied like the United Nations inspectors would have done but for the decision to kill half a million Iraqi in order to disarm Saddam Hussein through violence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> ematic nonsense.


I’m aware that you would go there so that’s why I made sure there is no semantics. Everything is based on facts. And you will not be able to refute the facts. Being a liar that you are and a complete fake and failure at life all your arguments boil down to either it’s semantics it’s irrelevant or calling someone a retard and a Lib

That’s you dude. Its your MO.

you do draw out perfect arguments by me and that is why I love you so much.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> no, I clearly do not agree.


YOU MUST HAVE A REASON  if it’s ‘clearly’ in your head. Do you mind sharing as to why you believe 1441 was not US policy to offer Iraq a final opportunity to comply?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> Ok. So, why did you say that they did know it?


They did know that Iraq claimed they were unilaterally destroyed in 1998 and it was not documented.

My point is the UNSC and USA knew about the unilaterally destroyed old weapons when they gave SH a final opportunity to comply. You made the point that Iraq should not have done it so he didn’t deserve a last chance to comply and your other bull shit that Iraq inspectors cant determine or verify the Iraqi claim.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> FUTURE generations need to know that only 4 of 10 Americans were the angry Islamophobic Christian culture Americans that got their big costly deadly unnecessary war only because the President of the United States A REPUBLICAN lied.
> 
> White washers like you need to be exposed so it never happens again.





Correll said:


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



I told you what it’s about a while ago.


We learned a lot about you as the conversation moved along. 

One of the most interesting was this:



Correll said:


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



He probably was ....  going through the motions..  he is a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not, doesn't seen to understand that this is the past, AND CAN'T BE CHANGED.



Can’t change the past but can protect the past from those that lie about it?

After 1441 this not true.


Correll said:


> Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.


Why do you try to change the past by lying about it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 11, 2021)

I guess American cultural Christian paleo conservatives don’t pay much attention to history 

“On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States, which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941.”




Correll said:


> Starting a war with a nation that is not a threat to us is not depraved. Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.



We learned Correll will say ignorant things about the unnecessary killing of half a million Iraqis to find wmd, such as the WWII generation did it to the non-threat NAZI regime 80 years ago.


I do not remember SH declaring war on the United States after one of his allies in the effort for world domination bombed US Navy Ships as they sat in harbor in a surprise attack...

The bombing of Pearl Harbor surprised even Germany. Although Hitler had made an oral agreement with his Axis partner Japan that Germany would join a war against the United States, he was uncertain as to how the war would be engaged. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor answered that question. On December 8, Japanese Ambassador Oshima went to German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to nail the Germans down on a formal declaration of war against America. Von Ribbentrop stalled for time; he knew that Germany was under no obligation to do this under the terms of the Tripartite Pact, which promised help if Japan was attacked, but not if Japan was the aggressor. Von Ribbentrop feared that the addition of another antagonist, the United States, would overwhelm the German war effort.​​







						Germany declares war on the United States
					

Adolf Hitler declares war on the United States, bringing America, which had been neutral, into the European conflict. The bombing of Pearl Harbor surprised even




					www.google.com
				


​[Hitler] was convinced that the United States would soon beat him to the punch and declare war on Germany. The U.S. Navy was already attacking German U-boats, and Hitler despised Roosevelt for his repeated verbal attacks against his Nazi ideology. He also believed that Japan was much stronger than it was, that once it had defeated the United States, it would turn and help Germany defeat Russia. So at 3:30 p.m. (Berlin time) on December 11, the German charge d’affaires in Washington handed American Secretary of State Cordell Hull a copy of the declaration of war.​

SH’s IRAQ was heavily bombed by the US and UK during the SUMMER if 2003 But SH’s response was to invite the US and UK to enter Iraq to identify sites suspected of production and stockpiling of WMD.

I do not recall Iraq declaring war on the US whIle 2000 UN Inspectors were working on disarming Iraq peacefully.


Declaration of War on Germany, December 11, 1941​On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. *This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States,* which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941. Responding to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s solemn affirmation that “the forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere,​


----------



## Correll (Jun 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The one that Iraq could be invaded based on the argument installing a democracy would make the world a better place without Saddam Hussein. The argument that without SH in the world it is a better place is true. But the launch of war solely on that basis has no merit and it was never authorized by the United States Congress.




1. Never said "solely".

2. The many reasons for the war were part of the debate for the war and part of getting support for the war.


----------



## Correll (Jun 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > no, I clearly do not agree.
> ...




You know, everything you cut, was relevant to answering that question, right?

"


> 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"




1. You are BEGGING THE QUESTION, in stating as a premise, "earnestly made". 

2. When you ask me if I agree with that, you are thus asking me, my evaluation of the offer.

3. My evaluation is that the offer was NOT earnestly made. That Bush was just going though the motions. 

4. Which was completely understandable. 



Why do you  think that Bush wanted to invade Iraq?


----------



## Correll (Jun 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. So, why did you say that they did know it?
> ...





1. HUGE difference between KNOWING SOMETHING, and KNOWING THAT SOMETHING WAS CLAIMED. That you conflate the two is a very serious use of dishonesty to make your.... theory hold together.  BIG FLAW THERE.


2.  My reasoning for him "not deserving a last chance" was not because he had destroyed the weapons and failed to document it. That you thought that reflects a very confused understanding on your part.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> You know, everything you cut, was relevant to answering that question, right?



No I do not know that. I do know that this tactic is another one of your Tricks. It’s the questions you can’t answer the tell me the most about you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. Never said "solely".





Did you or did you not find the WMD argument to you personally to be unconvincing?




Correll said:


> 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. Or did you just make that up after the fact when the WMD  argument went up in $5 trillion worth of smoke?




Does that mean you were not convinced by the sole  justification based on a threat for war that made war necessary? The only justification for war presented  by our government was to disarm Iraq of WMD by enforcing all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions with regard to Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.





Correll said:


> 1. Never said "solely".





Definition of solely
1 : to the exclusion of all else
done solely for money
2 : without another : SINGLY
went solely on her way


You @Correl said “ even by themselves they justify war”. 

Yeah, right you never said solely but you sure meant solely, without another, to the exclusion of all else, individually, on their own, alone. 


There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention,  (without another)  they justify war, 


There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention,  (solely)  they justify war, 


There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention,  ( to the exclusion of all else)  they justify war.



Oh and by the way you were responding to the following when you  @Correl wrote  “ even by themselves they justify war” ......



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.
> ...




Did Iraq have the military and industrial capability making it well on its way to “enslave the entire world” as the fascist Tripartite Pact of Germany, Japan and Italy? 





NotfooledbyW said:


> On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. *This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States,* which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941. Responding to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s solemn affirmation that “the forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere,




Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us before FDR declared war on them because “ “the forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere”.




Correll said:


> Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole. Its




I Am A WHAT?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole.




I Am A WHAT?


----------



## Correll (Jun 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Not, doesn't seen to understand that this is the past, AND CAN'T BE CHANGED.
> ...




What is your opinion of Bill Clinton's policy of regimen change?


----------



## Correll (Jun 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Never said "solely".
> ...




I did find that argument unconvincing. But, I realize that other people can think differently than me, and when you ask about the debate the nation as a whole had at that time, then my answers are about what the group as a whole did or thought, as a group not me personally.


----------



## Correll (Jun 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




Are you being confused by the fact that I pointed out, that in my opinion, there were many reasons cited that INDIVIDUALLY could have justified war?


Just because I believe that they COULD have been used INDIVIDUALLY, does not mean that they WERE used that way.


They obviously were NOT. 


Do you like the idea that wars, when they reach a certain point, can be ended with Peace Treaties so that every war does nto have to be fought to the last man, with a scorched earth ending?


----------



## Correll (Jun 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




Correct. Iraq did not have the capacity to directly threaten us, nor to "enslave the entire world".


They did have the capacity to become a regional hegemon, in a very strategic region, leading to making the world a far grimmer and less safe place.


----------



## Correll (Jun 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole.
> ...




Well, you were certainly acting like one at that time. 

When you construct elaborate structures of belief, based on biased assumptions and then insult other people based on them, like calling people bloodthirsty, that reflects on you. 


You shouldn't do that.


----------



## Correll (Jun 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > FUTURE generations need to know that only 4 of 10 Americans were the angry Islamophobic Christian culture Americans that got their big costly deadly unnecessary war only because the President of the United States A REPUBLICAN lied.
> ...




Dishonest certainly. But if he truly thought that Saddam would never disarm, then going though the motions was not a "lie" so much as just trying to meet the expectations of various people, such as external and internal allies so as to get support for his policy.


That is reasonable. And part of his job as President. 


That type of behavior would not bother you, if it was a war  you supported, or if somehow the situation was reversed and the "going though the motions" was to AVOID a war, would it?


----------



## Correll (Jun 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I guess American cultural Christian paleo conservatives don’t pay much attention to history
> 
> “On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States, which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941.”
> 
> ...





I'm aware of all of that. 


It supports my point that a direct threat to our nation is not the only reason to declare war.


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > I guess American cultural Christian paleo conservatives don’t pay much attention to history
> ...


What the Iraq War should have taught every American is our federal government is a criminal enterprise and the war machine it operates needs termination. Sadly it appears Americans didn’t learn anything other than what the establishment demands they learn.


----------



## Correll (Jun 12, 2021)

gipper said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Well, I will agree that we learned a lot of bad habits during the cold war, for obvious reasons, and now need to unlearn them.


Pretending that it was all because "Bush lied" or "had daddy issues" is just partisan slop.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> That type of behavior would not bother you,




It certainly would. I stick with facts and demand honesty from my government when it is dealing with matters that will kill innocent civilians and destroy what they need to survive  with America’s unprecedented means for war. 


So quit your damn lying about what I think.


----------



## Correll (Jun 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That type of behavior would not bother you,
> ...




I specifically offered as a scenario if it was reversed to stop a war.

Diplomacy and politics sometimes require levels of deception. You are being... unrealistically simplistic to deny that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Diplomacy and politics sometimes require levels of deception.




“Sometimes” is bullshit. Never is called being moral. That time, BUSH’s lies and deception caused needless deaths and destruction and waste of our national security resources. 

When W decided publicly to reject Cheney’s rush to war argument in September 2002 in favor of Powell’s diplomatic, avoid war if possible means, as he was digging up support from Congress to get the AUMF passed in Congress, Senator Clinton was told by the White House that if he got a AUMF it would force inspections and if it forced inspections in it would cause peace. 

    “Bush Sends Congress a Proposed Resolution on Iraq  By Todd S. Purdum and Elisabeth Bumiller Sept. 19, 2002 WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 - President Bush asked Congress today for sweeping authority to use ``all means he determines to be appropriate, including force'' to disarm Iraq and dislodge Saddam Hussein, and warned: ``If the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will.''”









						Bush Sends Congress a Proposed Resolution on Iraq (Published 2002)
					

President Bush formally asked Congress today for support to disarm Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.




					www.nytimes.com
				




     “ `If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,'' Mr. Bush told reporters in the Oval Office after meeting with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior officials working to overcome French and Russian resistance in the Security Council and draft a new resolution there holding Iraq to account.”

You claim W was going through the motions the whole time. That means he lied to US Senators that took  him at his word and gave him the authority to use force if SH refused to let inspectors in. 


You are a despicable human being and a worse American for excusing W’s lies that show his absolute disrespect for the Separation of Powers on a matter of war. Senators gave W what he wanted but he shit on them after getting what he ‘politically’ wanted. And went through the motions you say.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> I'm aware of all of that.
> 
> It supports my point that a direct threat to our nation is not the only reason to declare war.



When Germany declared war on the United States it was a direct threat. You point is absurd to make your false equivalence between Germany and Iraq. 

Any comparison between the threat level based on industrial and military capability between Iraq and Germany is beyond absurd. It is so absurd it is obnoxious that you would stoop so low to go there, 
.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.





Correll said:


> It supports my point that a direct threat to our nation is not the only reason to declare war.



Your earlier post did not mention “direct” threat as seen above. 

I agree with all the Dems that voted yes in October to the AUMF under the conditions that Bush set. 


“Reporter: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?
Bush: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, "We support the administration's ability to keep the peace." That's what this is all about.”


Had Saddam Hussein refused to let inspectors in after 1441 I would have supported the invasion as long as Bush took his time and prepared the troops for nation building before going in. Wait until September as Biden recommended. No real risk to take a little longer. 

That’s not a response to a direct threat in that case - its a matter of enforcing international law. 


But Saddam let the inspectors in. But I don’t insist that war cannot be necessary if it is not a response to a direct attack. 

The Taliban did not directly attack us, but taking them out for harboring al Qaeda was justified when W exercised our inherent right of self-defense in response to terrorist attacks .

The better example is the First Gulf War which I supported because it was done with a broad coalition of international and regional support. It was limited to the defined mission and was successfully executed.

SH was not a direct threat to the US at the time if the First Gulf Ear.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is the crux of our disagreement. We disagree whether all possible peaceful solutions were exhausted.




We are not having a disagreement. You are trying to force one of your many escaped from reality into the discussion.  This one you have debunked when you said you believe W was only ‘going through the motions’ because he really didn’t believe Iraq would be disarmed peacefully. If W was going through the motions it means he wasn’t really exhausting anything in the hopes of avoiding military conflict. W was with Cheney the whole time who thought going to the UN was a bad idea because it would muck up the exaggerated justification for war that he worked so hard to establish outside the real intelligence services.


----------



## Correll (Jun 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Diplomacy and politics sometimes require levels of deception.
> ...




What wars have you supported?


----------



## Correll (Jun 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I'm aware of all of that.
> ...




Germany was pretty busy at the time. It was unlikely to be able to directly attack America any time soon. 


It was you that set the bar at "DIRECT" not me.


----------



## Correll (Jun 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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



Correct. I was referencing to your earlier position. Which, it being yours, you  should be able to remember.


----------



## Correll (Jun 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That is the crux of our disagreement. We disagree whether all possible peaceful solutions were exhausted.
> ...




If Bush "really didn't believe that Iraq would be disarmed peacefully", then he believed that. 

You cannot then judge him actions as though he agreed with you, that Saddam might have been disarmed peacefully.


That you cannot grasp that, is a serious flaw in your...thinking. 


Really, I almost HOPE that you are being dishonest there, because if you really cannot grasp that, that is a serious flaw in your intellectual development.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> Starting a war with a nation that is not a threat to us is not depraved. Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole.



Where in the above argument do you mention “direct threat” when you made a point that “ Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it”? 

In October 2002 I accepted easily that Saddam Hussein posed unique threat in a post -9-11 World because he kicked inspectors out in 1998 and was in violation of international law.  Eliminating the threat was conditional on what SH chose to do with regard to allowing inspectors back in. 

I saw a unique threat in Saddam Hussein, because he potentially had weapons of mass destruction. And the unique threat was that he could give weapons of mass destruction to an organization like al Qaeda, and the harm they inflicted on us with airplanes would be multiplied greatly by weapons of mass destruction. And that was the serious, serious threat. But I preferred that threat be eliminated through the UN if possible just like 6 out 10  Americans believed with me.


Nothing but crap from you:


Correll said:


> I was referencing to your earlier position. Which, it being yours, you should be able to remember.



You are a liar. And my memory is fine because I don’t confuse myself by lying and making stuff up all the time. 




Correll said:


> Starting a war with a nation that is not a threat to us is not depraved. Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole.


----------



## Correll (Jun 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Starting a war with a nation that is not a threat to us is not depraved. Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole.
> ...




I recall you making a point about iraq not being a direct threat. My response was in response to that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> If Bush "really didn't believe that Iraq would be disarmed peacefully", then he believed that.
> 
> You cannot then judge him actions as though he agreed with you, that Saddam might have been disarmed peacefully.



I’m not judging him. I know for a fact he told my Senators in Virginia that he preferred to exhaust all means possible before resorting to war if they voted to give him authorization to use military force if UNSC WMD Resolutions could not be enforced by peaceful means.


If what you say is true about going through the motions then he lied to Congress about the need for war. He is a corrupt liar and was unfit to be President abd must never be respected for dishonesty in that office.


----------



## Correll (Jun 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > If Bush "really didn't believe that Iraq would be disarmed peacefully", then he believed that.
> ...




That is funny. You state that you are not judging him and then you IMMEDIATELY JUDGE HIM. 

I have often commented that liberals have all the self awareness of a potted plant. IF that potted plant was dead.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is funny. You state that you are not judging him and then you IMMEDIATELY JUDGE HIM.




I’m not judging W. I’m testifying that what he did was a lie. I’m telling you that he said ``If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,' to my Senators. He lied to Congress.

You can’t refute my testimony so you whine that I’m judging him unfairly. 

If we can’t criticize a President who lies to Congress what can we criticize? 


You support W for lying. You have no morals or decency.,


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> I recall you making a point about iraq not being a direct threat. My response was in response to that.



Your recall sucks. 


HERE’s what went down. 


NotfooledbyW
* 		May 29, 2021
* 		#1,205
Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough. 


Correll
* 		May 29, 2021
* 		#1,212
1. Starting a war with a nation that is not a threat to us is not depraved. Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole. 


NotfooledbyW
* 		May 30, 2021
* 		#1,252
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?


Correll
* 		May 30, 2021
* 		#1,253
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.

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


NotfooledbyW
* 		May 30, 2021
* 		#1,255
Do you believe that is true? YES or NO?


Correll
* 		May 30, 2021
* 		#1,259
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 (Jun 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That is funny. You state that you are not judging him and then you IMMEDIATELY JUDGE HIM.
> ...




1. You said this.

"He is a corrupt liar and was unfit to be President abd must never be respected for dishonesty in that office."

That is you judging.


2. Don't move that goal post by adding qualifiers. 


3. Now, I don't even remember the point I was making in pointing out that you were judging him because you bogged down the discussion in nonsense and cut everything. That is the actions of a man willing to use dishonesty to defend his position.


----------



## Correll (Jun 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I recall you making a point about iraq not being a direct threat. My response was in response to that.
> ...




Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. 


Nazi Germany was bogged down already in a two front war between the British Empire and the Soviet Union. They were not much of a threat to US, at that time. 

Yet, we declared war on them, and waged it, with great energy and effect. 


Do you think that was unfair of US?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.




Is that your wiggle and squirm language? 


Not much of a threat in 1941 you say. 

* On 4 September 1941 during the "Greer Incident" the destroyer USS Greer was fired upon with torpedoes by U-652.
* On 18 October 1941 HMS Broadwater was sunk by U-101. Among the fatalities was Lt John Stanley Parker RNVR an American [8]
* Either the casualties inflicted on USS Kearny by U-568 on 17 October 1941 (11 KIA)[9] or the sinking of the USS Reuben James by U-552 on 31 October 1941, (115 KIA)[10]

The fascist Germans killed 127 Americans sailors prior to US declaration of war. So apparently looking back is to a fascist like you is ‘not much of a threat’ . You are depraved. 

DId Iraq have a fleet of submarines with torpedoes going after US ships in the Gulf area or did Iraq have zero threat capability to our ships.



NotfooledbyW
* 		May 29, 2021
* 		#1,205
Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough.


Did we start WWII in order to “nation build” Germany in 1941 or did Germany start the war with the United States when they attacked our Navy and declared war on us.


----------



## Correll (Jun 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.
> ...




no, Iraq could not do that. 

They could have attacked Saudi Arabia, threatening the world's  supply of oil. They could have supplied terrorists with chemical weapons, that could have killed thousands of Americans. 

Indeed, they did invade Saudi Arabia, but we were there to stop them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> They could have attacked Saudi Arabia,




You are being absurd. After 1441 there was no way Iraq wanted to or had any capability like the Germans had when they attacked all their neighbors. 


The Saudis were like 6 out of 10 Americans polled and most governments in the entire world that wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time and knick off the ground invasion nonsense for peace and stability in the region.


----------



## surada (Jun 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Saudi Arabia opposed the invasion of Iraq as foolhardy and implored Saddam to come to KSA and live in a compound. Iraq did NOT invade KSA.


----------



## surada (Jun 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > They could have attacked Saudi Arabia,
> ...



Prince Bandar was recalled to Saudi Arabia because he failed to dissuade Dubya from invading Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> They could have supplied terrorists with chemical weapons, that could have killed thousands of Americans.




But you say that’s not the argument that convinced you at the time that it was necessary to kill half a million Iraqi civilians and spend $5 trillion in order to set up a Christian culture style democracy in the Middle East because Iraq was a great candidate for that.


----------



## surada (Jun 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > They could have supplied terrorists with chemical weapons, that could have killed thousands of Americans.
> ...



That's the core problem.. These ugly, ignorant people think they have some right to force change on foreigners.


----------



## DrLove (Jun 14, 2021)

Nope, said the wife at the time - “Oh God, here we go again!”
I knew the Bushistas were lying about WMD. Dirty Dick just wanted a war - ANY war.
Turned out to be one of the worst foreign policy blunder in US History right up there with Vietnam.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> You cannot then judge him actions as though he agreed with you, that Saddam might have been disarmed peacefully.




Let me clarify what I said based on your exact statement. I am not judging W actions as though he did not agree with me that Saddam could have been disarmed peacefully. I’m condemning him because he stated publicly his agreement with me that it was best to disarm Iraq by getting the inspectors back into Iraq. BUT HE WAS LYING. That is a reality you condone so I don’t. I’m condemning W for lying for six months in a ramp up for war. 


Now you tell me it’s my fault for not knowing W needed to lie so he could get support to invade a Muslim nation just because he wanted to. 

If W believed what you say he believed that Saddam would never have disarmed he should not have lied to members of Congress that he believed SH would do It. He lied to get an AUMF that he did not really need as part of the war on terror. He could have skipped the whole UN waste of time and asking Congress for an AUMF if he knew all along he was not going to pay any attention to it. 

You don’t think lying by W to drum up fake support for his stupid war is wrong. You are corrupt depraved and an ugly American - No wonder you love Trump even though he ‘judged’ Bush to be a liar to help win the nomination  in 2016.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is the crux of our disagreement. We disagree whether all possible peaceful solutions were exhausted.




It’s not a disagreement. All possible peaceful solutions were not exhausted. You have told us that the US President is a liar. He was the onc saying all peaceful solutions were exhausted. He is a liar. 

The Chief weapons inspectors reported proactive cooperation in February so from that point on there was no reason to end the peaceful means of disarming Iraq. 

You expect us to believe a liar that you admit is a liar. You are mad.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> Nazi Germany was bogged down already in a two front war between the British Empire and the Soviet Union. They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.




Germany embarked upon a war of conquest in order to have permanent  access to oil. The Germans were advancing winter of 1941- 1942 to capture the Suez Canal and access to the vast oil fields in the Muddle East.

Oil was everything: 

“Above all, the Reich was short of fuel. Romania and Hungary supplied a large proportion of Germany's needs. But this was not enough to satisfy the appetite of the Wehrmacht's gas-guzzling tanks and fighter planes.








						Why Hitler's grand plan during the second world war collapsed
					

Two key factors undermined Germany's campaign: US involvement boosted the allies' arms-producing capabilities, while sheer Soviet manpower led to catastrophic defeat in Russia. By Richard J Evans




					www.google.com
				



Rommel's eastward push across northern Africa was designed not just to cut off Britain's supply route through the Suez canal but above all to break through to the Middle East and gain control over the region's vast reserves of oil. In mid-1942 he captured the key seaport of Tobruk. “ 



Hitler gaining control of Middle East oil fields was a severe threat to our way of life unless you consider our way of life to be comfortable under a fascism..


----------



## surada (Jun 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Nazi Germany was bogged down already in a two front war between the British Empire and the Soviet Union. They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.
> ...



Hitler wanted to control all the oil fields from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf.. He called it PLAN ORIENT.


----------



## Correll (Jun 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > They could have attacked Saudi Arabia,
> ...




THey didn't have to be "LIKE" the germans. That is a silly thing to say. 

THe point is that your bar on "threat to America" has never been a rule.


----------



## Correll (Jun 15, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Irrelevant.


----------



## Correll (Jun 15, 2021)

surada said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Irrelevant.


----------



## surada (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



If its irrevelant,, why lie about it?


----------



## Correll (Jun 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot then judge him actions as though he agreed with you, that Saddam might have been disarmed peacefully.
> ...




IF Saddam had come clean at the last moment, presenting a large stockpile  of wmds, to be properly destroyed, 


imo, Bush would have been forced by his earlier words, to back off the invasion. 



You are also ignoring that, in Bush's mind, war was the right thing to do, YOu keep harping on YOUR view of the war, as though we should use that as a reason to judge Bush more harshly.


You NEVER wax poetic about the oppression under Saddam, nor the human cost of the wars HE launched, nor the human cost of the terrorism he supported, nor the way he fired rockets blindly into Israel, hoping to cause enough civilian deaths to force an Israeli response, in hopes of causing a wider war.


How about some imagery from you on what if he got his wish and the Arab Street rose up and demanded their governments fight back against the "Christian invaders"?

Riots and street battles, in residential areas, in possibly a dozen countries leading to a major regional war, with millions of men marching and dying, with world oil production and distribution all fucked up, leading to economic and political turmoil around the world.


Yes, Before you get emotional about the cost of what BUSH, did, even one more time I want a couple posts, expressing your shock and horror at what Saddam did and wanted to do.


----------



## Correll (Jun 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Nazi Germany was bogged down already in a two front war between the British Empire and the Soviet Union. They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.
> ...




We were not dependent on middle eastern oil back then.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


I would have been MUCH happier if the mission in Iraq consisted of JUST 
GETTING RID OF SADAAM-----he was *EVIL.  -----   *_getting rid of that  monster 
also unloosed the  fifth column  shiite shit_


----------



## Correll (Jun 15, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




I did not lie. YOu  are an asshole.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


did I miss something-----someone claimed that Iraq invaded Saudi arabia???? -----
nope--it was Kuwait.     HOWEVER there is no question that IRAN WOULD LOVE 
TO TAKE THE BLACK TURD IN THE SAND  and become the CONTROLLER of the 
<ugh>   islamic-world.    -----however,   I am not sure how that disgusting situation 
would affect us.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> We were not dependent on middle eastern oil back then.





But Europe was dependent on Middle East  oil for survival. 


That you don’t perceive all of Europe and Russia falling under fascists control and mass executions and genocide of the non pure white races to be a threat to our way of life tells me you would have sympathized with the fascist side back then..


When you say Germany was no threat if it gained control of the oil that the rest of the worlds democracies depended on tells me you are a fascist in heart and spirit or you enjoy arguing absurdities because are insane.


----------



## Correll (Jun 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > We were not dependent on middle eastern oil back then.
> ...




My position is that a nation, such as Nazi Germany or Ba'athist Iraq, is by it's very existence a just target for war. 

You are the one who wants to limit war, or our legal ability to wage war, so that future presidents, when faced with such situations, are unable to wage war.

SO that a future bad guy, can see easily defined and easily avoided lines, outside of which he can commit terrible atrocities and increase his power or area of control, while we sit there, and just watch, unable to respond.

Until the bad guy, the future Hitler or future Saddam, is complete ready to cross the line, on his terms, when he things he is ready to take us.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are the one who wants to limit war, or our legal ability to wage war, so that future presidents, when faced with such situations, are unable to wage war.



You are a liar. I supported W’s father in 1990
for reasons stated often here. He did not lie about why it was necessary. I Also support W’s military operation in Afghanistan and still do. 

You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> My position is that a nation, such as Nazi Germany or Ba'athist Iraq, is by it's very existence a just target for war.



They cannot be compared at all. In 1941 Germany was evil in action threatening the entire world. In 2003 IRAQ was evil inactivated by United Nations Inspections and 250,000 activated  ground troops ready to invade if he did not cooperate with the inspectors. The inspector W said he wanted there to prevent war if possible. All the past transgressions and evil were taken off the table when W gave SH one last opportunity to comply as official US policy. 

IRAQ didn’t have an Air Force or Navy to repel or slow a Blitzkrieg ground invasion. Germany invented Blitzkrieg in 1939. There is comparison if you are sane and have morality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> when he things he is ready to take us.




Yeah right - Saddam was ever gonna think he could take us. You are a pathetic argument-less fool. You are being absurd..


----------



## Correll (Jun 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You are the one who wants to limit war, or our legal ability to wage war, so that future presidents, when faced with such situations, are unable to wage war.
> ...




Why? Saddam's Iraq in 1990 was not a threat to America.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why? Saddam's Iraq in 1990 was not a threat to America.



Just like Germany did in 1939 Iraq sent an army across the border in an attempt to expand its territory. That was a violation of international law. The entire world formed a coalition to remove Iraq from Kuwait. They stated what the purpose of the war was, achieved a success, and pulled out making sure not to go beyond the stated purpose of the war.

In 2003 the son of a much better bush could not form a coalition as broad as his father did and as you say he had to lie just to get the small coalition of the bribed To go along with it.


----------



## Correll (Jun 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Why? Saddam's Iraq in 1990 was not a threat to America.
> ...




Got it. So the "threat to America" was just not a serious rule, just something you put out there to see if it would stick.


That point is refuted, we can move on now. Don't bring it up again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> Got it. So the "threat to America" was just not a serious rule, just something you put out there to see if it would stick.
> 
> That point is refuted, we can move on now.



What point is refuted? Iraq was a zero threat in March 2003. That is not a statement about some kind of a rule justifying war. Six months earlier SH was in violation of international law. War to remove him would have been justified if SH refused to resume inspections. Like it was in 1990 war was justified to enforce international law. If you need a comparison to 2003 let’s say the threat of force in 1990 had caused SH to withdraw from KUWAIT before the start of military action.  In that case war would not have been necessary. 

Thats why I say Iraq was zero threat AT THAT TIME and there was no war needed to enforce international law. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough.



So what point do you think you refuted? I suspect you are lying because you have no clue about the point I made about not starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to us in any way, Or a threat to the rest of the world including IRAQ’s neighbors. AT THAT TIME.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Just like Germany did in 1939 Iraq sent an army across the border in an attempt to expand its territory. That was a violation of international law.



Since you cannot discuss the Fact that I supported a war to enforce international law - not a response to a direct threat or action against the United States, you must resort to making up some fiction and declare yourself some kind of winner. 




Correll said:


> Got it. So the "threat to America" was just not a serious rule, just something you put out there to see if it would stick.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 15, 2021)

Correll said:


> IF Saddam had come clean at the last moment, presenting a large stockpile of wmds, to be properly destroyed,
> 
> imo, Bush would have been forced by his earlier words, to back off the invasion.



Saddam didn’t have any WMD to turn over. He certainly could not have turned over a large stockpile of WMD’s that he did not have. 


But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”? Didn’t you support a war to nation build Iraq into a functional Democracy In the Muslim world? Even if you had to kill half a million Iraqi civilians to do it.


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IF Saddam had come clean at the last moment, presenting a large stockpile of wmds, to be properly destroyed,
> ...




It is very dishonest of you to ask questions about what people were doing and thinking at that time, and then to use hindsight, ie information that they did not have at that time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is very dishonest of you t




No it’s dishonest of you to avoid answering the question that was put to you. It had nothing to do with hindsight.



But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”? Didn’t you support a war to nation build Iraq into a functional Democracy In the Muslim world? Even if you had to kill half a million Iraqi civilians to do it.


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It is very dishonest of you t
> ...




ARE YOU DROPPING YOUR POINT ABOUT SADDAM NOT  BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.



You are an idiot. Nation building was not a choice after removing the Baathist and their government from power. And specifically when you thought Iraq was was crawling with WMD that could have easily fallen into the hands of terrorists without a government keeping order in the country you just took over. 

You break it you own it dunderhead. 

That’s why you exhaust every peaceful means available when there is no immediate threat  before breaking a Muslim Country by shock abd awe and Blitzkrieg.

Correll
* 		May 30, 2021
* 		#1,259
So to be clear, YES, I agree that Iraq did not directly threaten us. 


Why are you now buying into the WMD argument for war when you said you didn’t at the time?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> ARE YOU DROPPING YOUR POINT ABOUT SADDAM NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?



Saddam not being able to do what?


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.
> ...




What are you talking about?


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > ARE YOU DROPPING YOUR POINT ABOUT SADDAM NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?
> ...




Seriously? You really lost the thread of your own argument that fast?

STOP CUTTING SHIT.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> What are you talking about?




You made an idiotic comment. 

“ the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.”

You cant remove a dictator from power and walk away. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to protect THE PEOPLE and their property.


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What are you talking about?
> ...




That is your opinion.

My comment was in the context of another point you made, if I recall correctly, where you were acting as though nation building was the justification for war, as opposed to a goal. 


That you take it out of context and try to build a fresh line of attack, is dishonest and lame.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> You really lost the thread of your own argument that fast?



No, I figure you are a monkey flinging shit around because that is all you do well.


I have no idea what you are referring to but In nit dropping any points and who could know what this means?  “ …. SADDAM NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?

WHAT is “that”


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You really lost the thread of your own argument that fast?
> ...




Not being able to produce a large stockpile of wmds, to be destroyed. 

You were making the claim that Bush was "lying"  by "going though the motions". 


I pointed out that IF Saddam had called Bush's "bluff" so to speak, that Bush would have been, imo, forced to call off the invasion.


You brought up something that was not known as fact, at that time, which was dishonest and unfair of you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> You were making the claim that Bush was "lying" by "going though the motions".



You said W was “going through the motions” that is lying.  saying one thing opposite what he planned on doing all along.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not being able to produce a large stockpile of wmds, to be destroyed.
> 
> You were making the claim that Bush was "lying" by "going though the motions".
> 
> ...




And I asked you



NotfooledbyW said:


> But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”?




Still waiting for your answer.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> You NEVER wax poetic about the oppression under Saddam, nor the human cost of the wars HE launched, nor the human cost of the terrorism he supported, nor the way he fired rockets blindly into Israel, hoping to cause enough civilian deaths to force an Israeli response, in hopes of causing a wider war.



Did SH do any of that after W drafted 1441 and got it unanimously passed and inspections resumed to disarm Iraq peacefully?


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You were making the claim that Bush was "lying" by "going though the motions".
> ...




What do you think would have happened, if Saddam had produced his large stockpile of wmds, to be destroyed?


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Not being able to produce a large stockpile of wmds, to be destroyed.
> ...




No. YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point. 


You admit you are dropping the bs attack, and I will be happy to move on to  the next point. 


None of this shit, or I start calling you WALLY.


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You NEVER wax poetic about the oppression under Saddam, nor the human cost of the wars HE launched, nor the human cost of the terrorism he supported, nor the way he fired rockets blindly into Israel, hoping to cause enough civilian deaths to force an Israeli response, in hopes of causing a wider war.
> ...




Yes. And you never talk about that human suffering, with any feeling, or drama, the way you harp on it when it serves your purpose.

I guess human suffering is relative... depending on whether it is useful to you or not.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> No. YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point.



This question has nothing to do with you NOT knowing if SH had WMD at the time. Try reading it. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”?



You argue with no backup that you and fellow warmongers won the debate for war in October 2002 based on not much more than SH was evil. Yes SH was evil but the argument for war depended on suspicion that SH was hiding WMD from 1441 inspectors in March 2003. 

Your posts indicate you are wavering on your original “WMD!s didn’t  matter” argument. 

Which would be good except you have drifted into justification for war because The Third Reich was not a threat in 1941 even though they killed 127 American sailors on the high seas before declaring war on us and were on the March to take over large parts of the world with the most powerful military on earth at the time.


----------



## Correll (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > No. YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point.
> ...




Your words from the previous post.


"Saddam didn’t have any WMD to turn over. He certainly could not have turned over a large stockpile of WMD’s that he did not have."


Are you dropping that point?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes. And you never talk about that human suffering, with any feeling, or drama, the way you harp on it when it serves your purpose.



The human suffering you supported was worse than what SH ever did. THE ENDS do not justify the means when you directly take another’s life who did not want your ends.

Most importantly SH was not causing human suffering after 1441. 

We cant control what every bad actor does in the world but we should be responsible for what we do with the most powerful military in the history of mankind.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> Are you dropping that point?



No. It’s a fact.  

I posted it because you said Bush couldn’t have invaded if SH turned over a large pile of WMDs 


So I’m asking why not?



NotfooledbyW said:


> But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”?



It has nothing to do with taking advantage of hindsight whatsoever. 


Why cant you answer this? 

Why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors” as you have been arguing for months.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point.



If you wanted it, there was plenty of available knowledge we the people did have prior to the invasion sufficient to possess a great deal of certainty that SH was telling the truth when he said he did not have any WMD. I was certain for many reasons the WMD was not going to be found by the invading military amidst all the death and destruction.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Six out of ten Americans opposed the invasion without UN Authorization. They know what a just war requires. And they were absolutely right.



Where in the above quote did I say the UN is a world Government. 



Correll said:


> The UN is not a world government. That a significant portion of the population has been confused on this issue, is very dangerous, and not relevant to this topic. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT is the governoring authority, not the fucking UN.



What is “confusing” about the US Government seeking authorization and support through the United Nations to resolve a continued threat without war.  This made it into the AUMF with regard to Iraq: 


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.


W did part 2 when he got 1441 passed. Why do you reject peaceful solutions to the world’s problems?

Think the lives of American men and women who choose to serve instead of your ugly right wing tribal desire to break things first and do peaceful things later.


----------



## Correll (Jun 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. And you never talk about that human suffering, with any feeling, or drama, the way you harp on it when it serves your purpose.
> ...




My point was very simple. YOu are using appeals to emotion as an argument, and the fact that you only care about the human suffering that serves your partisan agenda, shows that you really don't care about any of the human suffering.

You are just using it. 


I DO care about the human suffering. But I am NOT using it. 

I believe that I can defend my position or arguments based on their internal logic. 


YOu feel you need to use tactics to DISTRACT the reader(s) from the logic of your arguments. 


Because, deep down, you know your argument is deeply flawed.


----------



## Correll (Jun 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Are you dropping that point?
> ...



You can't do that. The people at the time did not have that information. When you put forth that point you are not asking that question but making the FALSE point implication that Bush's action's were lies because he knew that Saddam COULD NOT comply.


You are pretending to ask one question while actually making a different point.


FUnny how many of your tactics are designed to undermine logical debate, not enhance it or use it. 

Almost like, deep down, you know that logic and truth won't lead where you want to go.


----------



## Correll (Jun 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point.
> ...




Irrelevant. You have to judge the people by the information and perceptions they had when they were making their decisions.


Indeed, if you were an honest, good faith debater, you  would WANT to do that.


That you don't, is very telling.


----------



## Correll (Jun 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Six out of ten Americans opposed the invasion without UN Authorization. They know what a just war requires. And they were absolutely right.
> ...




If you imagine that the UN has the Authority to authorize or NOT authorize America's foreign policy, then you are supporting the false idea of them as a world government.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> If you imagine that the UN has the Authority to authorize or NOT authorize America's foreign policy, then you are supporting the false idea of them as a world government.




I’m not imagining that at all. But when the US government seeks or requests the United Nations Security Council to authorize something for the benefit to all concerned there is not one goddamn thing wrong with that and it doesn’t mean I think the United Nations is a world government having authority over United States national security decisions. The UN can and will never have control over what the United States can and can’t do when necessary to defend itself or anything else.

 The fact is invading Iraq was not necessary at all on March 17, 2003 in order to defend The United States of America. It was a matter of enforcing international law. There’s not any good reason to try to do so outside the authority of the united nations jurisdiction.

 It was George W Bush himself who in October 2002, in accordance with the authorization to use military force in Iraq vote, sought the UN to give one last attempt to bring Iraq  into compliance with it’s United Nations Security Council disarmament obligations for once and for all. That’s what the deal was. That’s why we engaged at the United Nations. 

The goal was to find out if Iraq could be disarmed peacefully. And SH certainly could have been been if W had been patient like Biden said and stood by his word that he too was strongly in favor of disarming Iraq  peacefully and would exhaust all means possible to do so.

So quit making up crap about what I think the United Nations is or isn’t. You are pathetic and a loser when you pull that crap.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Irrelevant. You have to judge the people by the information and perceptions they had when they were making their decisions.




It was actually very easy for me to be 99% certain that little W‘s invasion was not going to find any significant trace of active WMD stock piles or any other kind of ongoing nuclear weapons program. So yes I can judge the warmongers  from Cheney on down for deliberately misleading the unintelligent stupid and lazy people people such as yourself who could not be bothered with digging into the facts with regards to something as goddamn serious as invading a Muslim nation and destroying its government and society when that nation was absolutely zero threat to us in March 2003 when the blitzkrieg shock and awe was launched.

I reserve my right to condemn you people. Is the only honest thing to do


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are pretending t




You are without facts and without reason on top of being without morality.


----------



## Correll (Jun 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > If you imagine that the UN has the Authority to authorize or NOT authorize America's foreign policy, then you are supporting the false idea of them as a world government.
> ...




You get personal when you know that your argument is weak.


Such as denying that you think the UN has Authority over the US government, when your entire argument is that the UN  has authority over the US.


----------



## Correll (Jun 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant. You have to judge the people by the information and perceptions they had when they were making their decisions.
> ...







Just because you believed something at the time, does not mean that other people agreed with you.


If you are being serious, you are really fucked in the head.


Even if you have aspergerges, or something like it and can't grasp the idea of other people's internal feelings, you should intellectually be able to accept it as a concept.


If you are lying and just pretending to be unable to understand it, you are being quite a jerk, stonewalling like this.


Seriously. If this position is how you really think, there is a real problem there.


----------



## Correll (Jun 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You are pretending t
> ...




You are the one who is out of touch with reality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are the one who is out of touch with reality.



How so? You have never refuted my facts or established that you have bothered to arm your arguments with facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Just because you believed something at the time, does not mean that other people agreed with you.




I really do not care if lazy stupid people agree with me. There were plenty of sources at the time before the invasion to know that Little W was lying and SH was not when he told the world he didn’t have WMD. 

I know for a fact that you were one of the stupid ones because you lately still claim that SH was poking the bear after 1441 at the time if the invasion.  Thats not a disagreement- that is you being wrong about an obvious fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Such as denying that you think the UN has Authority over the US government, when your entire argument is that the UN has authority over the US.



I have never ever ever hinted that I think the United Nations has authority over the United States. You are a liar, a pathetic weak minded liar that you have to resort to such false hoods.    Nothing has authority over the United States of America: we are on top of the world and nobody can tell us what to do. but we can and we should work with international agencies in resolving conflicts peacefully. And besides we can veto anything the United Nations wants to do as a permanent member on the security council. Therefore you are an idiot for even suggesting that I think the United Nations Security Council has authority over the United States of America.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> BY YOUR STANDARDS, Lincoln lied US into war.






Correll said:


> You are the one who is out of touch with reality.



You have no relationship with reality. Lincoln did not start a war. The Trump insurrectionists of Lincoln’s era started a war at Ft Sumter. The same lineage of Confederate flag flying traitors started the Civil War and the January 6 insurrection. It is not possible that Lincoln lied to start a war because he did not start a war the way that W did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Silly words games to dodge the fact that your big sin, "lying us into war", especially considering the harsh standards you have been using to justify it, in the context of Bush, applies to Presidents you like too.




Bush didn’t lie us into the war in Afghanistan. So what ‘harsh standards’ have I been using? The ramp up to war in Iraq was unique and unprecedented.


----------



## Correll (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You are the one who is out of touch with reality.
> ...




The bit where you don't understand that other people disagree with you and you insist on judging their actions as though they shared your view of the situation.


That is a serious failure in your grasp of the reality that other people have different internal thoughts than you.


You seem to have a serious personality disorder. 


And I am being completely serious. Your argument, your thinking is seriously fucked up.


----------



## Correll (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you believed something at the time, does not mean that other people agreed with you.
> ...




It is irrelevant whether or not "there were plenty of sources" at the time.


Can you understand that?


----------



## Correll (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I have never ever ever hinted that I think the United Nations has authority over the United States. You are a liar,




I stopped reading here. When you constantly refer to the UN as an Authority, you are doing just that. 

That you are insulting in your denial, is you being an ass.


----------



## Correll (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > BY YOUR STANDARDS, Lincoln lied US into war.
> ...




1. It was stupid and dishonest of you to conflate the Confederates with Trump supporters. 

2. You are being extremely rigid in your definition of start. A word I did not use, btw. You seem to be inconsistent with that too. 

3. DID LINCOLN LIE about how opposed he was to slavery?


----------



## Correll (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Silly words games to dodge the fact that your big sin, "lying us into war", especially considering the harsh standards you have been using to justify it, in the context of Bush, applies to Presidents you like too.
> ...




Don't ask silly time wasting evasive question. My point stands.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. It was stupid and dishonest of you to conflate the Confederates with Trump supporters.



Why? I saw Confederate Flags flying in the mob that made the assault on Capitol Hill to overturn the election -  They are traitors and they are Trump Supporters. Why don’t you see the connection?

This ain’t no aberration: 







I’ll bet none in that crowd would have fought as Americans during the CIVIL WAR that LINCOLN did not start.


----------



## Correll (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. It was stupid and dishonest of you to conflate the Confederates with Trump supporters.
> ...




Because like 5 generations have passed and the meanings associated with the symbols have changed dramatically and the two situations are completely different and you have demonstrated a pathological inability to understand the internal world of others. 


Actually, you have demonstrated a pathological inability to understand that others even HAVE their own internal world.


I think I have read about this, in describing the difference between humans and gorillas. 


YOu have a very serious problem. Well,  deep problem. It might not prevent you from being a productive member of sociey.

BUT, it is a very...something problem.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because like 5 generations have passed and the meanings associated with the symbols have changed dramatically



No the symbols have not changed dramatically at all:

This ain’t no aberration: 

I’ll bet none in that crowd would have fought as Americans during the CIVIL WAR that LINCOLN did not start


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because like 5 generations have passed




The only thing different is it will be much harder this time. They already lost the first battle on January 6th. 

They didn’t take Fort Sumter this generation’s Civil War. 

A word of advice to red states that want to secede to escape Biden presidency

ROGER L. GUFFEY | LOUISVILLE COURIER JOURNAL | 10:07 am EST December 21, 2020

Texas and some other red states are clamoring to secede from the United States because Joe Biden won the election. That is a truly outstanding idea, but these states should realize what they will be giving up.









						A word of advice to red states that want to secede to escape Biden presidency
					

The irony is the states that are the most vociferous proponents of secession are the ones that get the most federal aid. They should count the costs.



					www.google.com
				





They will need to start their own armies, navies, marines, air forces, border patrols, coast guards, Pentagons, defense departments and veterans’ affairs. The federal government will close all the military bases in these states and withdraw all military personnel. Texas will give up NASA. The states will have to start their own Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Homeland Security and National Security Agency.
These states will have to fund their own social security programs, food stamps and unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, Aid to Women, Infants and Children, Affordable Care Act, Welfare and Federal Emergency Management Agency. They will have to start their own mints and begin to issue their own currency, securities, create treasuries, develop a postal service, implement a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and an Internal Revenue Service to collect money to support these services


----------



## Correll (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Because like 5 generations have passed and the meanings associated with the symbols have changed dramatically
> ...




Your denial is delusional. Dismissed.


Do you have anything else?


----------



## Correll (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Because like 5 generations have passed
> ...



5 generations have passed, was in reference to the symbols changing. 

Your response was.... off topic. Completely.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. It was stupid and dishonest of you to conflate the Confederates with Trump supporters.
> ...


what "connection" ?     For some people the confederate flag represents 
patriotism for the erstwhile southern states------not a longing for prohibition, 
slavery, or grits


----------



## Correll (Jun 18, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




He  has or is pretending to have, an inability to understand that other people don't think the exact same thing he does.


He has been consistently judging other people AS THOUGH THEY AGREE WITH HIM ON THE ISSUES, and then  judging their different actions as though their intent is based on believing what HE believes.


At best he is a complete liar.

At worst he has a very serious personality disorder of some type.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> He has or is pretending to have, an inability to understand that other people don't think the exact same thing he does.




This is not about what other people think or what I think. It’s about what people accept as fact and truth and making reasonably honest judgments based on facts. You may think the earth is flat and th the sun comes out of the sea in the morning and goes back into the ocean in the evening or whatever but it was never a fact and it never will be a fact. I can’t stop you from thinking it. But I can judge your morality when don’t “think” based on facts and people end up dying because of it. Yes I can judge you. It’s a shame more people don’t.


When you say Lincoln lied us into the war by my standards to make a point it’s not a fact. When you say Germany was no threat to America just like Iraq when we declared war it is not a fact. When you say SH was poking the bear after 1441 you’re a liar it is not a fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> For some people the confederate flag represents
> patriotism for the erstwhile southern states--




The Confederate Flag was carried by traitors in the 1860’s and it was carried by traitors on January 6. It will never represent patriotism in the traditional American way or sense.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > For some people the confederate flag represents
> ...


you are a closed minded idiot------60 years ago did someone sing you to sleep with    
   with  LA LA LA LA betterrrrr  dead, than redddd   LA LA LA LA?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> you are a closed minded idiot




You are a Confederate traitor if you are still a Trump supporter believing in his big lie.


Why would any good decent American ever associate themselves with that flag.


----------



## Michael1985 (Jun 19, 2021)

I never bought into most of what the U.S. was selling as the motive for going to war. There was no evidence of WMD, and I've even longer believed that the reason the Hussein regime expelled the inspectors was that there were no WMD, thus no reason for them to be there.


----------



## Correll (Jun 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He has or is pretending to have, an inability to understand that other people don't think the exact same thing he does.
> ...




If you judge someone's morally, based on ignoring what they believed to be the facts when they made their decisions, you are the one being irrational.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2021)

Michael1985 said:


> I never bought into most of what the U.S. was selling as the motive for going to war. There was no evidence of WMD, and I've even longer believed that the reason the Hussein regime expelled the inspectors was that there were no WMD, thus no reason for them to be there.



The US and its allies had no evidence proving Iraq had WMD. The Governments that were provoking war had claimed that they began turning all their evidentiary intelligence over the the inspectors.  In all publicly announced evidence received by the inspectors- none turned out to be viable or shed any light on the matter. 


One fine example was the mobile chemical weapons labs mentioned by Colin Powell with sketches and satellite photos he took to the UN. They showed a specific facility that was supposed to have fake walls and secret garages for hiding the mobile labs. 

The inspectors proceeded to the facility and reported no such fake walls anywhere to be found. Colin Powell’s evidence turned out to be fake.   Found out later it was based on a defector nicknamed Curveball whom the German Intel services considered at the time to be a fabricator. 

Anyone paying attention the first few months of 2003 could easily know that the case for war was bogus and a fraud. @Cirrell could have figured that out to if he cared and had reservations about putting our troops in harms war fur a preemptive war of our own choosing.


----------



## Correll (Jun 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Michael1985 said:
> 
> 
> > I never bought into most of what the U.S. was selling as the motive for going to war. There was no evidence of WMD, and I've even longer believed that the reason the Hussein regime expelled the inspectors was that there were no WMD, thus no reason for them to be there.
> ...



So, you believe that I was not paying close enough attention at the time and thus, was mistaken?

If you  believe that, then to judge me as though I knew something you just said that I was unaware of, 


is insane of you.

Literally.


----------



## ESay (Jun 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> If you imagine that the UN has the Authority to authorize or NOT authorize America's foreign policy, then you are supporting the false idea of them as a world government


Well, basically yes. Every military action of one country against another one (if that is not a response on a direct military invasion) must be approved by the UN Security Council. Otherwise, this action is considered as a military aggression.

It is somewhere in the UN Chapter or something like that.


----------



## ESay (Jun 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The Confederate Flag was carried by traitors in the 1860’s and it was carried by traitors on January 6. It will never represent patriotism in the traditional American way or sense


For you that flag represents traitors and white racists. For somebody else it has a different meaning. Anyway, what do you propose to do with it? To ban it in the US ?


----------



## Michael1985 (Jun 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Michael1985 said:
> ...


???


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you believe that I was not paying close enough attention at the time and thus, was mistaken?




Actually you are being judged for the words you put on this forum. Since you were not paying attention at the time you should not be posting opinions based on your extreme ignorance of what went down as you keep  doing. You should not be questioning the judgment and analysis of those of us that did pay attention to what the huckster Bush regime was selling. 

You should be neutral and try to learn from us and cease to continue with the propaganda and lies about Iraq still coming from your tribe.

An example is your oft made claim that SH was poking the bear after 1441. That claim makes it clear you were not paying attention in 2002 and 2003. SH’s cooperation was acknowledged by Colin Powell late December 2002.


You should have paid attention to the Secretary of State that was  put in charge by the President of your own political party. BUT You obviously did not..

*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? 

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


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






						Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos
					






					2001-2009.state.gov
				





*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.


----------



## Correll (Jun 21, 2021)

Michael1985 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




I can't explain it down anymore. If you can't get it, then it is beyond you. Sorry.


----------



## Correll (Jun 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, you believe that I was not paying close enough attention at the time and thus, was mistaken?
> ...




i stopped reading there. You dishonestly and cowardly cut most of my question. and then did not answer any of it. 


So, you believe that I was not paying close enough attention at the time and thus, was mistaken?

If you believe that, then to judge me as though I knew something you just said that I was unaware of,


is insane of you.

Literally.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you believe that I was not paying close enough attention at the time and thus, was mistaken?



I believe you when you said you weren’t paying attention, but that is not your mistake. Your mistakes are what you are saying now. Lots of what you say are lies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> If you believe that, then to judge me as though I knew something you just said that I was unaware of,




Language means nothing to you does it?  


I am not judging you as though you knew something that I said you were not aware  of… I’m judging you for not knowing many
“somethings” that any concerned citizen should have been aware of when giving a lying President his or her support and tacit approval for deciding to kill half a million Iraqis in order to disarm Iraq through war. 

You cannot discuss the ‘somethings’ and all the facts that support them. That is your mistake.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> I can't explain it down anymore.




Because it is absurd.


----------



## Correll (Jun 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, you believe that I was not paying close enough attention at the time and thus, was mistaken?
> ...



Then how do you justify judging me as though I knew something that you admit that I did not know?


Cause, it seems the only two possible answers are either A. because "I just want an excuse to attack my partisan enemies", or B. because "I have a serious personality disorder".


----------



## Correll (Jun 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe that, then to judge me as though I knew something you just said that I was unaware of,
> ...




Then the focus of your argument should be the need to have more fact based debate in political discussions, especially regarding wars. 

NOt, this weird focus on proving that your partisan enemies are "bloodthirsty" or harping on them being "Christian" or waxing poetic on the suffering of the iraqi children. 


ALL of that, makes it look like you are just using this whole issue as, some sort of weapon, either for partisan or ideological or sadistic reasons.


----------



## Correll (Jun 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I can't explain it down anymore.
> ...




No, because I made it as clear as it can be explained. That your thinking is hard to describe rationally, is not my fault.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> No, because I made it as clear as it can be explained. That your thinking is hard to describe rationally, is not my fault.



You would have to take my facts down to reject what you call ‘my thinking. You cannot do that because you are oblivious to facts based rationality. One example of that is your insistence that the killing of half a million Iraqis was necessary and justified on the basis that SH was given a final opportunity by W to get his WMD shit together with the world but he chose to poke the bear instead of taking it. The ‘poked the bear’ argument is a lie. Rational humans do not base their arguments and thinking on lies.  You have a serious problem with being rational because you are allergic to facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> Then the focus of your argument should be the need to have more fact based debate in political discussions, especially regarding wars.



We don’t need more facts based debate about the ramp up to the invasion of Iraq. 

We need you to make it part of your character and a requirement for your participation in our democracy to be done honorably instead of the white Christian nationalist tribal rote you are immersed in. 

Thats all. Seek facts and engage them.  The debates will get it right with regard to wars if your tribe could do that consistently and honorably.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> what "connection" ? For some people the confederate flag represents
> patriotism for the erstwhile southern states---




Do you think this rebel:traitor flag flying dude is convinced he is a patriot?


According to the Vice report, the plan by Chris Pohlhaus, 34, involved shooters targeting the nation's truck drivers in the hope that it would create economic chaos.










						Neo-Nazi shared plot with followers to use snipers to bring America 'to its knees': report
					

A former Marine who encouraged fellow neo-Nazi's to move to Maine and make a "white future" for themselves by creating a white ethnostate, also shared a video with his followers with a proposal to use snipers to bring America "to its knees," Vice News is reporting.According to the Vice report...




					www.rawstory.com
				




According to Vice's Ben Makuch, the ex-military man sat before a Confederate flag in his video and detailed his plan.

Writing that Pohlhaus described his proposal as one that could "easily disrupt the United States' supply chain," Makuch quoted the self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi telling his fans, "It's easy to stop trucks. You don't need anybody; you barely need anyone. Twenty five dudes. Twenty five dudes trained with a (rifle)," before adding, "Each one of those guys shoots and moves and hides, shoots two truckers a day. That's 50 truckers (shot) every day


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > what "connection" ? For some people the confederate flag represents
> ...


 
  CLUB OVER-LAP


----------



## Correll (Jun 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > No, because I made it as clear as it can be explained. That your thinking is hard to describe rationally, is not my fault.
> ...




Not what I said. ALl this time and you are still not getting it.


----------



## Correll (Jun 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Then the focus of your argument should be the need to have more fact based debate in political discussions, especially regarding wars.
> ...




And that is why your input into the issue of war or peace will be nil. 

Because you are here just to smear your partisan and ideological enemies and groups that you are bigoted against.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because you are here just to smear your partisan and ideological enemies and groups that you are bigoted against.




When you have no facts to rely on you must argue nonsensical non-facts that exist only in your silly head.

 Its true - I do not like or condone liars. especially those that collectively lie from within a large political group. The Trump cult is a good example - just yesterday the leader of the cult told this huge lie … "this means we won the Presidential Election in Georgia." .. 

I hate liars - specifically a former President     who has convinced a lot of white evangelical Christians that he won the 2020 election. What kind of man lies to Christians?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not what I said.



You didn’t say SH was poking the bear?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because you are here just to smear your partisan and ideological enemies and groups that you are bigoted against.



The reason that I am here does not refute the facts I have presented to you on any matter being discussed. 

Nothing I write is bigoted. I reject white Christian evangelical nationalism not at all based upon their religion. My rejection is based on their white nationalism under cover of Christianity So like you they can whine when they’re white nationalism is criticized.


----------



## Correll (Jun 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Not what I said.
> ...




Dude. The way you just seem to HAVE to pepper your statements with partisan smears. It is hard to take you seriously.

Also, the way you insist on cutting away things and then referencing them, especially considering what a freak you are for exact wording.

You are not serious.


----------



## Correll (Jun 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Because you are here just to smear your partisan and ideological enemies and groups that you are bigoted against.
> ...




Blah, blah, blah, how many times you going to say 
'white nationalists" and "Christians" in the same sentence in order to conflate them like a good propagandist?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> The way you just seem to HAVE to pepper your statements with partisan smears.



When one’s facts are accurate and undeniable, sorry Mr. Factless, those are not smears.


----------



## Correll (Jun 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The way you just seem to HAVE to pepper your statements with partisan smears.
> ...




Obviously I was not referring to the FACTS you mention, I was referring to the numerous partisan smears. 


Why are you pretending to be too retarded to understand that?

Also, the way you cut away the previous post, before you answer it, more and more, is looking like a move to make your attempts to be dishonest easier.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> white nationalists" and "Christians" in the same sentence in order to conflate them like a good propagandist?



Are you saying there is no major voting bloc in the Trump/Republican Party that is white, Christian and nationalistic.


I say “white” evangelical Christians not in any derogatory sense but in a factual sense because Americans of a white  evangelical Christian affiliation had an overwhelming "trust Bush"  on invading Iraq and support for the Bush doctrine of offensive war and spreading Christian culture democracy among Muslim nations because it is God’s will to do so. 


Black evangelicals did not have that “trust Bush” syndrome that their fellow white evangelicals definitely had. 


Write Evangelicals are responsible for the disaster of invading Iraq. Black evangelicals are not.

 Black evangelicals are not nationalistic Christians. White evangelicals are nationalistic Christians. That is a distinction you should not deny. But you deny it by trying to make that accepted reality being mentioned is religious bigotry.


----------



## Correll (Jun 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > white nationalists" and "Christians" in the same sentence in order to conflate them like a good propagandist?
> ...



What I said was clear. That you rephrased it, to change my meaning and then you addressed that, was you being a dishonest and bad faith debater. 


That you feel a need to use such tactics, ALL THE TIME, is your brain dealing with the fact that you know you are in the wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> What I said was clear. That you rephrased it, to change my meaning and then you addressed that, ….



What meaning did you wish to convey and in what way did I change it? You are a liar so we cannot take your word for it. Poking the bear is SH provoking, harassing, disturbing, frustrating the USA. What did you intend it to mean?


----------



## Correll (Jun 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What I said was clear. That you rephrased it, to change my meaning and then you addressed that, ….
> ...




You know I was thinking about you some, while I was away, and something occurred to me.

You seem to get a lot of your sense of self worth, from the illusion you create of being "wise" because you were "not fooled by W".


This  illusion is created from a mix of taking certain data points from teh time, combined with a lot of hindsight and with that weird bit where you insist that everyone's view of the situation is the same as yours.


You've stated that what  you want to have happen is for people to take these decisions, such as war or not war, more seriously and/or honestly. 

BUT, it occurs to me, that NO ONE would meet your standards for this. No one could because a significant portion of your illusion is hindsight.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> BUT, it occurs to me, that NO ONE would meet your standards for this. No one could because a significant portion of your illusion is hindsight.




You cant read. Nothing I say is based on hindsight. Nothing. Six out of ten Americans saw what I saw before the decision to invade was made. The four in ten that didn’t see it was compromised of very large number Republicans and a large number of them were white evangelical Christian nationalistic warmongers that had no desire to seek truth and comprehend that they were being lied into going into war in Iraq. It was predictable that the UN inspectors could have found Iraq to be disarmed without war and without killing a single Iraqi innocent civilian. That was predictable.


----------



## Correll (Jun 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > BUT, it occurs to me, that NO ONE would meet your standards for this. No one could because a significant portion of your illusion is hindsight.
> ...




That bit where you made a point of mentioning their race and faith and nationalism?

That is just racism and religious bigotry and class bigotry from you. 


My point stands. Your view on this, and your stated goal, ie better decision making, is irrational and delusional.


----------



## surada (Jun 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




No hindsight about.. Everyone who knows the ME opposed the invasion. Diplomats, historians, Arabs, oilmen, American expats all knew it would be an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## Correll (Jun 27, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




You wish Saddam was still there? You don't  like the fact that Iraqis get to vote now? Hell, I believe they even have a fairly free press. 

Those are all bad to you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> You wish Saddam was still there?



You are a liar. I have not seen any anti war poster wishing that?


----------



## Correll (Jun 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You wish Saddam was still there?
> ...



He made the claim that the war was an "unmitigated disaster".


That statement claims that there are NO good results from it, to "mitigate" the "disaster".


That you make me explain this shit, instead of honestly addressing the valid points I make,

is a very dishonest tactic, that reveals two things.


1. You are a dishonest person.

2. That on some level, you know that the position you are defending, is wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> He made the claim that the war was an "unmitigated disaster".



You need to quit cheapening language. I recognize the fact that the invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster and that does not change because Saddam Hussein is no longer the dictator in Iraq and is dead. It remains a disaster because half a million Iraqis died not at the hand of the dictator but by the orders of the President of the United States who lied about the threat SH posed at the time.

Half a million innocent human beings killed who were no threat to the region or the United States is a disaster. That you state it was not a disaster is your racism and religious bigotry showing. They were Arab and Muslim who did not request that you rescue them from a dictator by Blitzkrieg, Shock and Awe.

You are a sicko.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He made the claim that the war was an "unmitigated disaster".
> ...




You are the one treating words as handfuls of poo to throw are your enemies. 

"Unmitigated" means NOTHING good to "mitigate" the cost or negative outcomes.

That you pepper this discussion of semantics, with Appeal to Emotion whining like a faggot over those that died in the war, is just you using propaganda techniques because you know you can't win the debate honestly.


Oh, and you said "wacism" like a retarded child. Are you are retarded child, or just playing one? I need to know to craft my posts to your level of idiocy, to reduce the explaining simple words game you leftards love so much.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> "Unmitigated" means NOTHING good to "mitigate" the cost or negative outcomes.



There is no “good” outcome for those who suffered death and serious loss as a result of your violent use of massive military force and reckless desires and behavior Correll. The dead cannot vote.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "Unmitigated" means NOTHING good to "mitigate" the cost or negative outcomes.
> ...




Aw, isn't that cute. You respond to a general statement about the war, focusing on a specific group.


Such rampant dishonesty, is a clear indicator that you know you are in the wrong and have to be dishonest to defend your positon.


Try again this time without the bullshit. 




Correll said:


> "Unmitigated" means NOTHING good to "mitigate" the cost or negative outcomes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> That you pepper this discussion of semantics,



There is no semantics. Dead means dead. Do I need to look it up for you. killing half a million Iraqis based on a lie is a disaster. You cant escape your guilt for supporting mass murder by crying its semantics and you killed them for their own good.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That you pepper this discussion of semantics,
> ...




We were just discussing the other poster's use of "unmitigated". You made a  point about it. I responded to your point about it. 


You just cut ALL of that and dropped it.

You didn't admit that you were wrong. YOu didn't build anything on it. So what was all that that other shit?

Answer: THat is what it was. YOu don't care that I showed that it was wrong. YOu weren't trying to make any point. YOu were just posting so you could pepper the posts and the thread with emotional appeals about shit. 


This is the behavior of someone who believes that lying is the only way to defend his position because on some level, you understand that you are in the wrong. 




That you can't admit that Saddam being gone, is a GOOD THING, is you demonstrating that you are not serious about finding the Truth, you just want to attack your enemies.


You also don't care about the people you keep citing. YOu are just USING them. That is far more disrespectful to them, then anything I have done.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> Aw, isn't that cute. You respond to a general statement about the war, focusing on a specific group.



And why should I not included the dead group (all that suffered grotesque losses in Iraq caused by the decision you made from a safe distance for them) when talking about good. KILLING Half a million Iraqis is an unmitigated disaster and there is nothing that can’t mitigate the fact that you Correll decided to terminate their lives from the comfort of your own home - far from the slaughter. 

And to this day you will not say that killing them was a mistake and a disaster. You therefore have no respect for Arab and Muslim lives. If that is not racism  and religious bigotry perhaps you will explain why it is not.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Aw, isn't that cute. You respond to a general statement about the war, focusing on a specific group.
> ...




In a general statement judging the war as a whole, they were included. Obviously. 


What you did, was EXCLUDE everyone and everything else, in a discussion about a general statement.



That was a lie.


And it is worth noting, you are lying and stonewalling, quite strongly JUST FOR OVER A MINOR MATTER OF SEMANTICS RE THE DEFINTION OF THE WORD UNMITIGATED.


If you would lie this much and this aggressively, for such an unimportant point, 


you are an utterly shameless liar, and NOTHING you claim has any validity beyond it's internal logic.


YOu don't get to say what I have said or not said. You want to know my position?


FUCKING ASK.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> That you can't admit that Saddam being gone, is a GOOD THING, i



You are a liar. SH being gone is a great thing. I said it. You must not repeat that lie ever again. But saying that that does not erase the unmitigated disaster of half a million innocent Iraqis who suffered the the termination of their lives based entirely upon our military action that was based on a big lie. Thats an unmitigated disaster. Why won’t you acknowledge that disaster?


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That you can't admit that Saddam being gone, is a GOOD THING, i
> ...




Mitigate does not mean erase. Are you actually unable to understand simple english or just pretending because you have argued yourself into a corner?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> In a general statement judging the war as a whole, they were included. Obviously.
> 
> 
> What you did, was EXCLUDE everyone and everything else, in a discussion about a general statement.




I do not exclude the survivors of the unmitigated disaster that you chose to force upon the people of Iraq. 


Most Sunnis in Iraq did not request your  salvation from SH and still don’t. Most Shiites in IRAQ (specifically the poor) did not request your salvation from SH. The ancient Christians in Iraq suffered and are damn near extinct in their ancient homeland because you decided to remove SH from the comfort of your white Christian culture home thousands of miles  removed from the death maiming bloodshed and loss of property that ensued from Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe.

The KURDS were for it but they were not living under SH authority at the time. 

And you voted for a President here in the US who promotes a policy of taking Iraq’s oil because they owe us for removing SH. 



*Donald Trump has long been obsessed with the idea of seizing Iraq’s oil as some kind of reimbursement for the money the U.S. has spent waging war in the Middle East. “I still can’t believe we left Iraq without the oil,” he tweeted in 2013. “It used to be, ‘To the victor belong the spoils,’” he told Matt Lauer during a campaign forum in 2016. “Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: take the oil.” The notion of looting Iraq’s natural resources—or as Trump explained the process to Lauer, “we would leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil”—was always certifiably crazy. 









						Trump Twice Floated Plundering Iraq’s Oil to Iraq’s Prime Minister
					

The president’s staff had to smack the idea out of him.




					www.google.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> Mitigate does not mean erase.



I never said it means that. I said it does  not erase. You are the eraser Correll. You are erasing the death from the discussion but I won’t let you.


----------



## surada (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Everybody in the ME knew that Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. 

That wasn't hindsight.. That was knowing the about the region and the players. 

Of course Iran is ascendant. That was expected... Why the hell do you think the Dual Containment policy worked for 20 years.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > In a general statement judging the war as a whole, they were included. Obviously.
> ...




When you responded to my point about "unmitigated" with a point based solely on the dead, you did exclude the "survivors" of the war. 

That  you can't bring yourself to tell the truth, on such a minor point, shows how insanely dishonest you are. 


Please consider all you claim, past, present and future, to be dismissed. Only the internal logic of  your arguments will be considered from now on. 


Or the lack there of.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Mitigate does not mean erase.
> ...




We were talking about "unmitigated" and you used the word "erase" to argue against it. 


That was YOU conflating the two, not me. 


That you deny it now, probably just a lie. Or maybe you forgot. You do seem to have argued yourself into a corner and you can't see a way out.


Which is funny, because this is an insanely minor point, with no larger relevance.


BUT, you can't tell the truth. YOu cant.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




i'm discussing Not's position. Try to be less... you.


----------



## surada (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



There were 50 Christian churches in Baghdad before Bush's invasion. Do you think Bush/Cheney gave a shit about that? 

Meanwhile, Dubya was posturing as an Evangelical who was fighting God and Magog.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> And it is worth noting, you are lying and stonewalling, quite strongly JUST FOR OVER A MINOR MATTER OF SEMANTICS RE THE DEFINTION OF THE WORD UNMITIGATED.



When are you going to explain the good  that came to a young waitress working in a restaurant who’s torso was blown in half by a bunker buster bomb that was dropped by the US military at your request.  She was blessed with her father and two brothers being killed in the same blast. They are in the ‘dead’ group. Her mother survived. If she survived the unmitigated disaster that you support she is in the alive group. And you sit here today telling me that she has it ‘good’ now thanks to you killing her sons, daughter and husband. Have you read the difficulties that widowed women face in Iraq.


I don’t exclude the surviving group. Most did not want your liberation and democracy forced upon them at the barrel of a gun held by a good many Christian soldiers.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> That was YOU conflating the two, not me.



I’m not conflating - you are attempting to erase the damaged dead and suffering Iraqis who received no ‘good’ from the disaster of the 2003 Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe that you decided to inflict upon them. And you still won’t admit it was a disaster that could have been easily avoided.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> When you responded to my point about "unmitigated" with a point based solely on the dead, you did exclude the "survivors" of the war.



You are liar. The use of the word ‘solely’ comes from you. I write this:



NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no “good” outcome for those who suffered death and serious loss as a result of your violent use of massive military force and reckless desires and behavior @Correll. The dead cannot vote.



I wrote “ There is no “good” outcome for those who suffered death and serious loss”  …  which means I acknowledged that there are survivors of the war you chose for them. That is not exclusion. I mentioned the survivors as the ones who lived and voted. 


So are a liar once again. 

The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster because too many Iraqis were killed in a cause that was not their cause. It was your cause. We humans should not needlessly kill half a million from any group and say to the survivors that it was for the greater good to ease the collective conscience of aggressor.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




Did you? Or are you just using them for your partisan purposes?


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And it is worth noting, you are lying and stonewalling, quite strongly JUST FOR OVER A MINOR MATTER OF SEMANTICS RE THE DEFINTION OF THE WORD UNMITIGATED.
> ...




Are you truly prepared to present yourself as being so stupid that you cannot make the mental leap that any mitigating goods occurred to people that were not blown up?


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That was YOU conflating the two, not me.
> ...




I did no such thing. While I have stooped to making numerous appeals to emotion, which loom so large in your supporting arguments, I am well aware of the human cost of war. 


Indeed, the fact that I do not callously use their suffering as a cheap rhetorical device, is me showing them far more respect than you.


And it is worth noting that you are STILL conflating the two even as you deny doing it. 


A discussion of mitigating factors, does NOT "erase" those that suffers.


You are truly making a fool of yourself at this point.


How can you not just admit that the removal of Saddam is, ,at least, a mitigating result?


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > When you responded to my point about "unmitigated" with a point based solely on the dead, you did exclude the "survivors" of the war.
> ...




When you respond to a general statement, with a point about a smaller sub set, with no mention of any other result, you are excluding the others.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> Did you?


I’m not using anybody for anything. I date the facts and the repercussions of your decision to liberate Iraq when the Iraqis did not ask you to liberate them. 

I care about all humans who share our existence so I oppose dropping massive bombs on people and destroying the Government under which they live who are zero threat to peace and security in the world. That specifically includes the ancient Christians who have existed in Iraq  for over a thousand years. Its an unmitigated disaster that you and George W Bush, both alleged Christians yourselves decided to wipe out an ancient Christian culture  through reckless and unnecessary military aggression. 

I’m sure that was an unintended consequence of your disastrous nation building program but that’s what makes it a disaster: you still have learned nothing from it.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Did you?
> ...




My question was aimed at Surda, who clearly was using them for an Appeal to Emotion. 


And you have certainly done the same.


Your denial is retarded. And a lie.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> did no such thing. While I have stooped to making numerous appeals to emotion, which loom so large in your supporting arguments, I am well aware of the human cost of war.



Iraq is a discussion about the human cost of unnecessary military aggression not about the human cost of a justified and necessary war. 

I am sure you are aware of the human cost of war - there is a distinction that you do not make with regard to Iraq. the human cost in the entire world from Japanese and German aggression was a disaster that ended with benefits such as preservation of liberal self rule and democracy. But Germans and Japanese’s were not innocent bystanders swept up by dictatorships seeking to enslave and dominate the world. The people of those  countries supported the fascist regimes with heart soul and body.

Your argument for good outcomes works for Democratic nations defending themselves in a just war but not with Iraq.

Iraq was not necessary in any sense in March 2003 so there is no outcome possible that justified taking the first Iraqi life to the last life taken directly or indirectly through the course of that war.

There is no justification for killing Iraqis  to remove SH when there was  no aggression coming from anyone in Iraq in March 2003.  The aggression came from you and your Republican ilk. A good many of them were white evangelical pro -invasion Christians and I will never allow you to hide that fact.. Because you are still one and still advocating for killing Iraqis who were no threat to you whatsoever at the time.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > did no such thing. While I have stooped to making numerous appeals to emotion, which loom so large in your supporting arguments, I am well aware of the human cost of war.
> ...




So, you're  dropping that nonsense about pretending to not know the meaning of the word "unmitigated"?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your denial is retarded. And a lie.



I am not using anybody for anything. I am merely stating facts that you cannot attempt to deny. So how is stating facts retarded and a lie. please explain.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you're dropping that nonsense about pretending to not know the meaning of the word "unmitigated"?



No. I know exactly what unmitigated means. There is nothing that mitigates the deaths of all the Iraqis you decided to kill by sending them your Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe nation building project in a Muslim land on March 19 2003 as soon as the UN inspectors could get out.

And recently you said this: 



Correll said:


> The Iraqis did fairly poorly at forming and maintaining their democracy and really shitty at DEFENDING their democracy from the Islamic Terrorists.



So you blame them for your fuck up on top of it all too.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your denial is retarded. And a lie.
> ...




You have repeatedly used the victims of the war in Iraq, as props for your various Appeals to Emotion.


Your denial of this fact is a lie and retarded.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're dropping that nonsense about pretending to not know the meaning of the word "unmitigated"?
> ...



The removal of Saddam is a mitigating factor. It is insane of you to deny this.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> The removal of Saddam is a mitigating factor.


How does the removal of Saddam make the deaths of half a million Iraqis less severe. There is nothing more severe than causing unnecessary premature deaths of half a million people by the use of military aggression labeled Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe where no threat existed. 

SH’s removal does not mitigate the fact that you killed far more people by removing him than you prevented from being killed  had you let the inspectors continue disarming him peacefully to remove WMD that he may have illegally possessed.

Its as if you get drunk and  drive your car head on into another and kill the father of five kids and want to say the kids went to college on the insurance money they got because you killed their dad, so that’s an after the fact mitigating factor. It just doesn’t work that way. It is no less severe to the survivors no matter how much ‘good’  comes out of a disaster when the deaths are absolutely unnecessary and never can be justified.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The removal of Saddam is a mitigating factor.
> ...



It doesn't. That is not what "mitigates" means. 


Look it up. Then come back and admit that you made an argument about semantics and you were wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is not what "mitigates" means.




mit·i·gate - verb - make less severe, serious, or painful. "he wanted to mitigate misery in the world” 




NotfooledbyW said:


> How does the removal of Saddam make the deaths of half a million Iraqis less severe.



So answer the question.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That is not what "mitigates" means.
> ...




The claim was made that the WAR, was an "unmitigated disaster". 

You have tried repeatedly to move the goal posts to just discuss war victims. 


That is you being dishonest.


THe removal of SADDAM, was a benefit of the war. 

D'uh.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> The claim was made that the WAR, was an "unmitigated disaster".



And it was.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The claim was made that the WAR, was an "unmitigated disaster".
> ...




So, you do not consider removing Saddam to be a good thing?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> You have tried repeatedly to move the goal posts to just discuss war victims.



Your war of aggression to nation build  a democracy in Iraq unnecessarily created half a million victims who are dead. That was an unmitigated disaster. Killing people so their survivors can vote is an atrocity. You don’t like unmitigated disaster -  try atrocity.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You have tried repeatedly to move the goal posts to just discuss war victims.
> ...




Do you not think that removing  Saddam was a good thing?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you do not consider removing Saddam to be a good thing?



No it is great that SH is dead and gone. But it doesn’t mean you should have killed half a million Iraqis to make it happen. 

That was a decision to be made by Iraqis - not you. You had no reason to be involved other than the WMD issue and that issue was being resolved peacefully and without death. 

The fact that you reserve the right to kill Iraqis just to give them a government to your specifications proves you are a racist. There is no doubt.

SH was evil but you committed more evil to remove him because it was not necessary at the time.


----------



## Correll (Jun 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, you do not consider removing Saddam to be a good thing?
> ...




Not, no one else seems to be in this thread. Your constant Appeals to Emotion are wasted. Adn boring.

"Mitigating" is not a question of whether it is worth it or not. It is whether or not there is ANTHIING good about an event.


The claim was that the war was an "unmitigated disaster. 


By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.


That you can't admit that, is pathetic of you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.





You are stupid. Mitigating is not the word you are looking for. SH’s removal does not reduce the deadness of the half a million Iraqis who are dead because you wanted  to bomb them into a democracy acceptable to white American Christians. Nothing can mitigate death caused by needless, reckless military aggression.  Nothing. 

What is an Iraqi life worth to you? You would not be whining for credit for taking SH out if you placed the same value on them as you do on yours. 


I will never agree that the US military should take one single life in order to nation build any nation that is no threat to us in any way. If I were to agree with you that killing half a million innocent Iraqis produced an end that justified the means then I would be a liar, a racist and a fascist so I will not go there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> "Mitigating" is not a question of whether it is worth it or not. It is whether or not there is ANTHIING good about an event.




Where did you get that definition? Here is the real definition:

*Mitigate is defined as to make something less severe, less harsh or less painful.


You have not explained how to make half a million dead Iraqis less severe, less harsh or less painful?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> Adn boring.



Running out new ways to lie and avoid facts are ya?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.



Getting rid of Saddam at the cost of half a million dead Iraqis is not great. It is not sone thing you should be proud of because there were no deaths being expected by continued peaceful inspections and the completion of the verification that Iraq was disarmed. 

You cannot morally chose the path that kills half a million Iraqis when there was an alternative path to the same end that kills zero and then turn around and claim the deadly path was the right way to go because SH ended up dead too. 

Well you can because you place no value on Iraqi life when you make the decision from thousands of miles away in safety that it’s ok to kill innocent civilians to give the survivors a chance to vote.  You are so sick you cannot see how amoral you are.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.
> ...




Your stonewalling is beyond belief.


Any rational, or even any person pretending to be a rational  person makes a policy argument by comparing benefits to costs. 


It would be completely valid of you to state that, in your judgement, that the human cost of the war far out weighted the mitigating factor of getting rid of Saddam.


That you cannot do that, proves, once again, that there is something wrong  with you.


Moving on, do you believe that Iranians are adult humans responsible for their actions?


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.
> ...




Do you have memory problems? Cause we have well established that we disagree on the viability of those alternative paths. 


Especially when you again assume the worst possible motive for our disagreement and assign it to me. 


What would have happened, if I had spent all this time assuming that you were a Ba'athist fascist  yourself, and was anti-war because you personally idolized Saddam Hussain? 


Would that have been fun for you? Would that have been a productive discussion? Or would that have been me, being a complete and total asshole?


----------



## surada (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Nothing good came out of killing Saddam. Remember there were 50 Christian churches in Baghdad before Bush's invasion.


----------



## surada (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Too many Americans are ignorant and arrogant.. They think they have the right to remake another country in their own image.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



What speak as though I am claiming the right to do that, without cause. That seems dishonest of you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> What would have happened, if I had spent all this time assuming that you were a Ba'athist fascist yourself, and was anti-war because you personally idolized Saddam Hussain?



Nothing different because you are required in this discussion to make arguments based on facts and only facts. It is not a fact that I am anti-war according to my previous statements that I fully supported W’s war against the Taliban and still do. I have also told you I supported W’s father’s war and very broad contributing coalition to oust SH from Kuwait in 1990. SH was an aggressor nation at that time (same as Germany 1839) having crossed internationally recognized borders with its army. 

So what would have happened if you lied about me as you are fond of doing? You’d be a liar. That’s all. That is you being normal. Nothing is changed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> THe removal of SADDAM, was a benefit of the war.



According to you removing SH was necessary not because of the WMD threat to peace and security in the world but in order to install our Christian culture ‘style’ of Democracy in a Muslim nation. So now you are claiming that your idea for the ‘necessity’ for war was a benefit of the war. 

You keeping forgetting that in a moral universe a war that takes the lives of innocents must be grounded in necessity as a last resort - there must be no other choice for a moral nation to make. 

I submit that you are confused about America because you are brainwashed into believing America is a Christian nation and therefore it is a moral nation even when it is the aggressor in a war of choice crossing an international border to impose its Christian  will on whatever nation it chooses needs it. 

You are confused because America had no  moral right in any sense to Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe Iraqis into democracy on March 19 2003. NONE WHATSOEVER!


----------



## surada (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > THe removal of SADDAM, was a benefit of the war.
> ...



Boy, you nailed it..  Such a disgusting mindset and the source of so many cruel failures. These American morons who think they can force another country to change their religion, cutlure and traditions. 

The Americans were successful in KSA because we were VERY clear that we weren't there to "fix" them or change them ..

So often this idiocy is couched in religion.. Christians who have NO respect for others or their ways. NO better than the Taliban or the Zionists.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > What would have happened, if I had spent all this time assuming that you were a Ba'athist fascist yourself, and was anti-war because you personally idolized Saddam Hussain?
> ...



Except you don't do that, as I pointed out, in the portion of my post you cut. 

So, your answer is a lie. 


Moving on, Question: DO you believe that Iranian adults are fully developed humans?


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > THe removal of SADDAM, was a benefit of the war.
> ...




1. You admitted that Saddam being gone was a good thing. 

2. This point has nothing to do with my motive for the war. It is a separate discussion. 

3. I have forgotten no such thing. We are discussing a minor point of semantics, ie the meaning of "unmitigated".  

4. Your submitted opinion does not match my stated positions on this thread. So, i can only conclude you pulled it out of your ass.

5. We have plenty of just cause for war against Saddam. Your denial is silly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. You admitted that Saddam being gone was a good thing.



Now you need to confess that your support for killing Iraqis to remove him was a terrible immoral despicable thing and you are sorry that you wanted them to suffer and die.


----------



## surada (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Of course the Iranians are fully developed human beings. Are you crazy? You sound like some rube who has never been out of Kansas.


----------



## surada (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You admitted that Saddam being gone was a good thing.
> ...




Saddam was hanged for doing exactly what Churchill and Arthur Harris did in 1920.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You admitted that Saddam being gone was a good thing.
> ...




I did not want them to suffer and die. THat is you lying.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




I'm not asking you, you drooling retard. I am asking Not.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> 5. We have plenty of just cause for war against Saddam. Your denial is silly.



No you don’t. You are a liar and a fascist and a racist. You did not mitigate civilian deaths when you called for Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe against Iraq. You caused every single innocent Iraqi death when you    shocked and awed them with your Christian nation military firepower. 

You are the dumbass who admitted that during the ramp up to war the threat of WMD in the dictator’s hands was not a threat and WMD was not why you supported war.   


You have admitted that you will kill civilians in a sovereign nation at your whim to make their lives better no matter what they want. You are a fascist. You demonstrate your willingness and eagerness to kill thousands who are zero threat to us just because we can. You have no moral restraint. You admit it and then whine because that identifies you with fascists that have no respect for human life except fir fellow fascists.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 5. We have plenty of just cause for war against Saddam. Your denial is silly.
> ...




Here, let's strip your post of all the personal attacks. 


"No you don’t.You did not mitigate civilian deaths when you called for Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe against Iraq. You caused every single innocent Iraqi death when you    shocked and awed them with your Christian nation military firepower.

You admitted that during the ramp up to war the threat of WMD in the dictator’s hands was not a threat and WMD was not why you supported war.  


You have admitted that you will kill civilians in a sovereign nation at your whim to make their lives better no matter what they want. You demonstrate your willingness and eagerness to kill thousands who are zero threat to us just because we can. You have no moral restraint. "


Now, let's strip out all the false accusations based on self serving assumptions from  you, about me.


"No you don’t.You did not mitigate civilian deaths when you called for Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe against Iraq. You caused every single innocent Iraqi death when you    shocked and awed them with your Christian nation military firepower.

You admitted that during the ramp up to war the threat of WMD in the dictator’s hands was not a threat and WMD was not why you supported war.  


You have admitted that you will kill civilians in a sovereign nation at your whim to make their lives better no matter what they want. "





Now, let's strip out all the emotional appeal hype. 



"No you don’t.You did not mitigate civilian deaths . 

You admitted that during the ramp up to war the threat of WMD in the dictator’s hands was not a threat and WMD was not why you supported war.  "




So, all that is left, all that you actually said, stripped of the bullshit, is a statement that doesn't make any sense.


I did not claim that removing Saddam "mitigated" the civilian deaths. 


My point was that the overall judgement of the war, had to include the admission, as you have done, that removing Saddam was a good thing.


Thus, AT WORST, the outcome of the war, was "mitigated".


That you have use such dishonest tactics, is you dealing with the fact that your position is not defensible. 


That you stone wall on such a minor sematic point, shows that you know that your positions is fragile as a house of cards.


Please stop filling your post with so much trash. It is sad.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> Here, let's strip your post of all the personal attacks.
> 
> 
> "No you don’t. You did not mitigate civilian deaths when you called for Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe against Iraq. You caused every single innocent Iraqi death when you shocked and awed them with your Christian nation military firepower.




Why not try to dispute the facts I presented instead of trying to strip them away so you don’t have to deal with facts by playing your stupid games. 

YOU really did not mitigate civilian deaths when you called for Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe against Iraq. 

Do you think you mitigated deaths in Iraq when you supported Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe? 

If not, then you must admit what I’m saying is a fact. You are a wanton killer fascist. 

You caused every single innocent Iraqi death when you shocked and awed them with your Christian nation military firepower.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> My point was that the overall judgement of the war, had to include the admission, as you have done, that removing Saddam was a good thing.



Your point is stupid. There is no ‘overall judgment’ that values the removal of SH over one single Iraqi that you condemned to death by Blitzkrieg Shock And AWE. 

The innocents you killed cannot opine that judgment - and you their killer have no right to decide it was worth it for them. The more you whine the more fascist you become. You think you speak for the people you killed in your nation building project. You are sick and demented.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Here, let's strip your post of all the personal attacks.
> ...




The vast majority of what you post is just trash. 


The way you open this post by lying about what I said in regards to "unmitigated".

That is trash. Nothing but trash. .


That you claim it to be a fact is just you lying.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > My point was that the overall judgement of the war, had to include the admission, as you have done, that removing Saddam was a good thing.
> ...




Here you pretend to be too stupid to understand the concept of "overall judgement".


That is really stupid. To be that stupid, you would have to be profoundly retarded. 


you are obviously not that stupid. So, you are lying.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW, do you believe that Iranians are functional adults equal to say, Americans in their understanding of morality?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> @NotfooledbyW, do you believe that Iranians are functional adults equal to say, Americans in their understanding of morality?



Yes of course.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> Here you pretend to be too stupid to understand the concept of "overall judgement".



No, you are a liar. I am not pretending anything. Your tricks don’t work with me. I mean what I say and always make sure that I am sticking with facts. You cannot make an overall judgment about the war because you killed half a million who have no say. They were victims of your military aggression. We don’t ask murderers to judge if the people they killed was for their benefit and their own good.


You killed half a million to experiment with nation building. You were a dumbass to admit that and there is no way out for you except to express some remorse for all those you needlessly decided to kill.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> The way you open this post by lying about what I said in regards to "unmitigated".



What did I lie about? Please cite the statement so I cant refute your nonsense.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > @NotfooledbyW, do you believe that Iranians are functional adults equal to say, Americans in their understanding of morality?
> ...



You've waxed quite poetic about the human cost of the war and cited mine and Bush's nationalism, race, and faith in the process of assigning ALL responsibility for ALL the human cost of the war to your partisan enemies.


YOu never seem to assign any moral responsibility to the Iranians for their role in the war. 


Why is that?


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Here you pretend to be too stupid to understand the concept of "overall judgement".
> ...




Obviously I CAN make an overall judgement of the war. ALL that talk in your post where you said I couldn't and you smeared me personally?

That was just you talking shit. 

I'm a dumbass for being honest about my past motivations? What an interesting and revealing statement for you to make.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The way you open this post by lying about what I said in regards to "unmitigated".
> ...




The bit where you lie about what I "mitigated". That was you lying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> The bit where you lie about what I "mitigated". That was you lying.



You mean where I stated this fact:



NotfooledbyW said:


> YOU really did not mitigate civilian deaths when you called for Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe against Iraq.




How is that a lie? SH was not committing or preparing to commit genocide in March 2003 so there were no Iraqi deaths to mitigate when you decided we needed to go in there and kill some and get many killed. How can the truth become a lie in your head?  You are excessively confused.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> YOu never seem to assign any moral responsibility to the Iranians for their role in the war.




What do the Iranians have to do with this? 


IF you mean the Innocent Iraqis you decided to kill they have zero responsibility for the war because in case you didn’t know we invaded Iraq - Iraq did not invade or attack the US nor was there a threat from Iraq after 1441 went into effect. 


How ignorant are you on this subject? Is there more ignorance you need lifted?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> I'm a dumbass for being honest about my past motivations?



You were a Dumbass for thinking back then you can kill innocent people to force them into a societal system of your choosing. 

You are a bigger dumbass for thinking you were right at the time and now still arguing you were right knowing all the death, misery and destruction that your arrogant ignorance caused for almost two decades in Iraq and the region. 


you are an arrogant dumbass- Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The bit where you lie about what I "mitigated". That was you lying.
> ...




That was you changing what I said, thus a lie. 


The bit where you pretend to be too retarded to understand that? That is also a lie.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > YOu never seem to assign any moral responsibility to the Iranians for their role in the war.
> ...




Are you pretending to be so retarded that you don't realize that most of those people died in the "insurgency" which happened after the invasion?


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a dumbass for being honest about my past motivations?
> ...



Well, we did it in Germany and Japan. And we DID do it in Iraq. 

So, your claim that I am a dumbass for thinking we can do it, seems to be you being retarded or lying.

Do you realize how much of this thread is you talking shit and me trying to get you to stop that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> Well, we did it in Germany and Japan. And we DID do it in Iraq.




We went to war in 1941 to preserve our own fucking democracy not to nation build Germany and Japan. We did so after the fascists and imperialists surrendered, but there was no surrender from Iraq, They were not attacking anybody when you decided it would be a good time to invade and kill some Iraqis.


The US invaded Iraq. We started the killing spree in Iraq. We broke  Iraq. There were 200 UN inspectors in Iraq saying Iraq was cooperating. Colin Powell said Iraq was cooperating three months before the invasion. NAZI Germany was not cooperating with freedom living nations. They were fucking trying to conquer the world, 

And you cannot see The difference. You are a fascist to be so blind. 


Germany had the most powerful military and industrial in the world and they were the aggressors. In MARCH 2003 we were the Germans and IRAQ was the Poles. 

I think we Americans are of higher moral character than the 1939 NAZIS. I certainly wonder if you care about things like that?


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> We went to war in 1941 to preserve our own fucking democracy not to nation build Germany and Japan.




YOU made a point that you "cannot kill innocent people to force them into a society of our choosing".


I made the point in response that we have done that in the past, and indeed we did it to Iraq.


That you changed the subject to JUSTIFICATION for war, is you just not being able to think coherently.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, your claim that I am a dumbass for thinking we can do it, seems to be you being retarded or lying.



you are not dumbass for thinking we could do it. You are a despicable dumbass for thinking it was right to do it. 

There was never doubt from me that our military could destroy Iraq’s army police and government. It was stupid to do that to a government that was zero threat to anyone when we smashed them and caused half a million Iraqis to die. 

YOU are sick to think you were right. That is what is stupid, stupid.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, your claim that I am a dumbass for thinking we can do it, seems to be you being retarded or lying.
> ...




So, you misspoke before?

You need to calm down and stop making assumptions. You are making all these assumptions and then building accusations and bullshit on top of them. 


You are assuming a justification when I was talking about a goal. And being an ass about it.


YOu  need to start asking  questions, and not flipping out, at the drop of a hat. YOu should like an hysterical woman.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You were a Dumbass for thinking back then you can kill innocent people to force them into a societal system of your choosing.





Correll said:


> YOU made a point that you "cannot kill innocent people to force them into a society of our choosing".



No. You are a liar. I made this point:

You were a Dumbass for thinking back then you can kill innocent people to force them into a societal system of your choosing.

Do you really think “ you can kill innocent people” whenever you want to. 

According to your messages on this forum, there was no self defense involved or necessary in your decision to kill innocent people with Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe. Have you drawn a line were killing innocent people is not morally possible and you would oppose it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you misspoke before?



No.  Read the posts.  I didn’t say nation building was not possible. I’m saying you are an amoral dumbass for intentionally killing innocent people from the safety of your couch and forcing other Americans to do it for you.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > You were a Dumbass for thinking back then you can kill innocent people to force them into a societal system of your choosing.
> ...




I would not support "killing innocent people", ie waging war, without Just Cause.


You seem to be trying to spin my desire for a GOAL of "nation building" as a MOTIVE.


Why are you doing that?


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, you misspoke before?
> ...




No, you said it could not be done.  You make these claims and when I respond to them, then you claim you didn't make those claims, and we waste days talking semantics and he said/he said nonsense.


Why are you doing this?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll look at my words: 



NotfooledbyW said:


> You were a Dumbass for thinking back then you can kill innocent people to force them into a societal system of your choosing.



So, it must be true that you really can’t see why it is morally wrong to kill innocent people who are no threat to you or to peace and security. 

Your knee-jerk response was not to argue the Iraqi non-Christian people you decided to kill were not innocent. 

They were innocent and no threat. 

You went straight to celebrating that the stated reason you needed to kill them actually worked out. 

This exchange has become very informative about the situational ethics and true lack of morality in the empty  soul of an average cultural Christian W to TRUMP Republican.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll look at my words:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your phrasing is quite a spin on waging war. 




Cease making claims about what I am saying or believing. YOU ARE TERRIBLE AT IT. 


Ask questions. And stop being hysterical..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> Ask questions. And stop being hysterical..




You went straight to celebrating that the stated reason you needed to kill Iraqis actually worked out. NATION BUILDING

Did you not? 

You didn’t go there to separate the dictator from WMD did you?

You favored killing Iraqis to nation build their society from the comfort of you safe Christian home. 

I’m not being hysterical. I’m confirming your messages on the topic.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Ask questions. And stop being hysterical..
> ...



i celebrated nothing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> i celebrated nothing.



Sure you did. You are as proud as a peacock to announce that killing civilians worked. You announced with no remorse that SH is gone and that is great and now the Iraqis have their very calm and peaceful democracy where all sects are doing so well. Tell me you aren’t happy about you Neocon Project’s success.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > i celebrated nothing.
> ...



The vast majority of what you said there is not true. YOu are either lying or delusional. 

Which is it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> o, you said it could not be done



you are a liar.

This is what I wrote: I 



NotfooledbyW said:


> You were a Dumbass for thinking back then you can kill innocent people to force them into a societal system of your choosing.



It’s ‘thinking you can kill innocent Iraqis” that you are struggling with. 

You apparently have no concept that “thinking” you can or should kill innocent Iraqis who are no threat is morally reprehensible and a sign of your depravity, let alone supporting actually doing it. 

But now knowing half a million souls perished in your 2093 project for Iraq and all you care about is making a lot of noise about how great it is that you killed them.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > o, you said it could not be done
> ...





War is a terrible thing to only be entered into with Just Cause. 


That you are being hysterical about the inevitable loss of civilian life, is just you being hysterical. 


Your assumptions about my views on it, are hysterical. The way you judge me based on  your assumptions is you being an ass. 


That I don't rave on and on about shit everyone knows, does not indicate lack of caring. 

Indeed, that I do not use their deaths for pathetic "points" in a online debate, shows more respect for their deaths than using them for such pathetic "points".


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> The vast majority of what you said there is not true.



So you are ashamed that your nation building project killed so many Iraqis and you now agree with me that W should have never started Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE on March 19, 2003 because it ain’t right to kill innocent people who are no threat in order to convert their society into a functioning democracy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> War is a terrible thing to only be entered into with Just Cause.



There was no just cause. NATION BUILDING is not a just cause to START a war by Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe. 

You cannot and have not made a case for a just cause to start the war in Iraq that killed half a million innocent civilians.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> That I don't rave on and on about shit everyone knows, does not indicate lack of caring.



You have given no indication that you know that it is immoral to start killing innocent civilians who are no threat to the peace and security of the region or the world.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of what you said there is not true.
> ...




I don't know which is more pathetic, the way that you cannot ask a question without stuffing the sentence full of begging the question partisan pap, 

or the way you ALWAYS immediately answer you own questions, in the most childish, "you're a blood thirsty poopy head" way imaginable. 


I challenge you to ask a serious question, and make it a real question, without that pathetic shit.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > War is a terrible thing to only be entered into with Just Cause.
> ...




I never claimed nation building as Just Cause. Your hysteria, whether real or pretend, seems to interfere with your ability to follow simple....reasoning. 



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. 


The Just Cause, we discussed for weeks. For you to "forget" all that I said about that, and misrepresent it now, is disturbing. 


Are you really so close minded that you are literally erasing concepts you disagree with from your mind? Or are you just being disingenuous?


Sometimes I get the feel, that you are not actually engaged in debate, but just using this as an opportunity to spam negative sounding jabs, to just put it out there, to create a general... illusion of questionable doubt, with regard to some silly ideas.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That I don't rave on and on about shit everyone knows, does not indicate lack of caring.
> ...




Correct. I have also given no indication that I believe that cannibalism or demonic summoning is immoral. 

And barring serious questions about such subjects, I won't be insulting your intelligence by doing so.


If you want to pretend that such behavior, indicates a support of demonic summoning, and start building a world view and making accusations based on that, 


that in on you. It has nothing to do with me. It reflects on the type of person you are, and how much you think you need to engage in hysterical and dishonest games to defend your ideas.


To be clear, I find your behavior in this regard, proof that on some level, you know that your position on this issue, is completely weak and thus you cannot defend it honestly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't know which is more pathetic





Correll said:


> I challenge you to ask a serious question,



Why do you never answer a serious question with a serious answer.Am you ever do is complain about how the question is asked? 

You can start here: Are you ashamed that your nation building project got so many Iraqis killed? Do you now agree with me that W should have never started Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE on March 19, 2003 b cause of all the death and destruction that resulted from invading a nation that was no threat to the region or the world at the time?


----------



## surada (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Just Cause? Are you completely nuts? When you attack someone's religion, heritage and traditions you get backlash.. They become more fundamentalist ... more zealous.

How stupid..The people who opposed the war.. oilmen, Arabs, expats, historians and diplomats knew better..


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know which is more pathetic
> ...




Because questions that are stuffed full of Appeals to Emotion or Begging the question fallacies, are not really questions. 


They are accusations just disguised as "questions".


For example what you are really saying above is not a request for an answer but spam designed to put out in the blogosphere, the idea that your enemies "killed a lot of people" and used overwhelming force, and "death and destruction" and "no threat".


It is a very dishonest and sleazy propaganda technique.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




We did not do that. The government we set up, did not do that. Are you insane or just a dishonest asshole?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> The Just Cause, we discussed for weeks



Saddam was evil is not a just cause. 

Your SADDAM was “poking the Bear” falsehood would be a just cause if it were not a lie. You chose to lie to make up a just cause. That means you don’t have one. NATION BUILDING was all you had left after advising that WMD was not it. 

it is a fact that lying against the facts does not count in a serious discussion. Saddam was evil and did evil things in the past prior to 1441. But there was no active evil after 1441 which means no death and destruction was to be prevented by invasion. NO JUST CAUSE because of that  little detail. The invasion started a new round of death and destruction supposedly because of bad intelligence about WMD on our part. We did not have bad intelligence that SH was an evil rotten dictator. You are confused and a liar when you justify the invasion based on SH’s evil past. 

And getting rid of SH because he was evil had to be followed up with nation building or a worse evil would have filled the vacuum. As we learned with the ISIS and former  SH Baathists later attempts to fill it. 

You have no “just cause” for removing SH by starting a major war on MARCH  19 2003 when evil SH was not behaving in any evil way ir doing any evil that would justify starting a war to remove him and destroy his army and police that were keeping order in Iraq at that time. 

You disordered Iraq not SH after 1441. THAT MAKES YOU EVIL.


----------



## HaShev (Jun 30, 2021)

Jets said:


> Only in the beginning because I believed that Hussein had WMD.
> 
> That said, I would have preferred President Bush kept the focus on killing OBL...


He didn't need to, with the British operation who got there first (early Oct), they took out his weapons cache and all the upper military personnel, maybe even much of his cash on hand, sending him injured into Pakistan and totally impotent, as he lost control of his power and became insignificant.
Media finally admitted this was the 
single most game changer in 
the war against terror-YOU'RE WELCOME.

In regards to taking out Saddam, his son would have been 2x worse then his father and a future calamity we could not risk allowing.
If you could take out Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazadar wannabes, you do it every time, history teaches us the outcome when you don't.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because questions that are stuffed full of Appeals to Emotion or Begging the question fallacies, are not really questions.
> 
> 
> They are accusations just disguised as "questions".
> ...



You cannot directly answer this question can you? 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you ashamed that your nation building project got so many Iraqis killed? Do you now agree with me that W should have never started Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE on March 19, 2003 b cause of all the death and destruction that resulted from invading a nation that was no threat to the region or the world at the time?




What are you afraid if? You already answered it indirectly But you just can’t come out and say directly that you agree with me. I understand that..


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Because questions that are stuffed full of Appeals to Emotion or Begging the question fallacies, are not really questions.
> ...




I clearly explained why I don't consider it a question.

I have challenged you to actually ask a question, without all the bullshit. 


DId you forget that? Or do you realize that you JUST CAN'T DO IT?

Or, are you refusing, because all you really want to do, is spam lefty talking points?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





Correll said:


> I clearly explained why I don't consider it a question.




You are a warmonger who refuses to accept facts.  Your explanations don’t serve much purpose except to expose the multitude of critical facts you are too fearful to deal with directly. I get the truth out of you primarily by your non-answers and ignorance and non-acceptance of facts.


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”?


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




YOu just cut nearly everything we were discussing, and then ignored the one little bit you did not cut. 

You cut your own words, flushed them down the toilet.


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


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.





Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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 (Jun 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Do you understand that wars spread?


----------



## surada (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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 (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




Nope. I do not mean from Afghanistan. 

Do you understand that wars spread? Yes or no.


----------



## surada (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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 (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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



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?




NotfooledbyW said:


> 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. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> 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.



NotfooledbyW said:


> and was attempting to destroy and conquer us



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



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Because there was a number of Just and Legal Justifications for the War
> ...



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


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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



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 (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know that it wasn't.
> ...



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


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


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



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.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Peace treaties or agreements are serious shit.



Then why don’t you get serious about the agency that the peace agreement was with and try to understand what 1441 was. 

*  R - The Washington Post
April 7, 1991. UNITED NATIONS, APRIL 6 -- Iraq today accepted the U.N. Security Council's tough resolution formally ending the Persian Gulf War in exchange for President Saddam Hussein's agreement to give up all weapons of mass ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you claim. Y



What in the claim are you challenging?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.



Why was the ‘invasion’ of Iraq part of the war on terror but Iraq was not? 

I’ll ask you again: 

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 (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Peace treaties or agreements are serious shit.
> ...




Because I don't give a fuck about the un. 

My point stands. IF violating a peace treaty or agreement carries no cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end, every time. 

Because you can't trust the defeated enemy to abide by anything they say.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, you claim. Y
> ...


 
Something in the part you cut. Doesn't matter. You don't care about it, from teh way you cut it, and thus neither do I.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I did not say that Iraq was part of the war on terror.
> ...




Why are asking a question and then immediately changing the subject?

It makes it look like you are trying to conflate different subjects.


If you want to discuss the invasion of Iraq being part of the war on terror, let's discuss that.


If you want to pepper the question with Appeal to Emotions and Begging the question fallacies with phrases like "terrorize" or "blitzkried" or "shock and awe", then I can't be bothered. 

You choose.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Here you offer what you think justified starting a major war in Iraq.



Correll said:


> They failed to live up to the terms of the ceasefire from the previous war.



The major agreement was for Iraq to give up WMD. 


* IRAQ ACCEPTS U.N. TERMS TO END GULF WAR By John M. GoshkoApril 7, 1991 UNITED NATIONS, APRIL 6 -- Iraq today accepted the U.N. Security Council's tough resolution formally ending the Persian Gulf War in exchange for President Saddam Hussein's agreement to give up all weapons of mass destruction and pay damages for its seven-month occupation of Kuwait.



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/04/07/iraq-accepts-un-terms-to-end-gulf-war/9800a4ea-62c1-4215-8119-f21cf4630b78/
		



But you contradict your own justification right here: 


Correll said:


> Because I don't give a fuck about the un.



I know you don’t because you want to kill innocent humans whenever you feel like it. 

You say you don’t give a fuck about the UN but you claim Iraq’s historical violations of a UN Agreement to disarm was a justification for killing half a million Iraqis. You wrote “ They failed to live up to the terms of the ceasefire from the previous war” 


But a while back you wrote:


Correll said:


> 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.



Sometimes you say Iraq’s failure to disarm justified the US invasion. sometimes you say disarming Iraq was not what convinced you to support the war. 
Sometimes you don’t give a fuck about the UN agreement to disarm Iraq 

sometimes you say It was nation building that legitimated the killing of innocent people in Iraq. Sometimes you say it
 was not. 

So who knows.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> IF violating a peace treaty or agreement carries no cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end, every time.



But W was good with 1441 and then SH was complying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why are asking a question and then immediately changing the subject?



here’s the question again: 

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?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> you want to pepper the question with Appeal to Emotions and Begging the question fallacies with phrases like "terrorize" or "blitzkried" or "shock and awe", then I can't be bothered.



SHOCK and AWE was not a fallacy. The roll into Baghdad from Kuwait was a Blitzkrieg. It terrorized Iraqis. 

You say you cant be bothered to explain why you supported the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe that terrorized Iraqis and caused half a million of them to die? 

You need more than a good dose of bothering that is for sure.

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?

Why?


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Here you offer what you think justified starting a major war in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Among others. They failed to meet them, to abide by them or at least to give documentation that they had done so. 


Thus, the ceasefire was violated. 

Thus, resuming warfare was legally and morally justifiable. 


I know that you disagree with this. Please spare me any Appeal to Emotion bullshit. 


If you think that failing to meet the terms of a ceasefire does not justify a war, explain what you base that on.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > IF violating a peace treaty or agreement carries no cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end, every time.
> ...



If violating a peace treaty or agreement carries not cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Why are asking a question and then immediately changing the subject?
> ...




That was all explained to you many times before. Are you pretending to have memory issues?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> f violating a peace treaty or agreement carries not cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end.



No. Iraq was not violating the 1991 UN Resolution and subsequent Resolutions in March 2003. That is a matter of fact. SH was in violation until 1441.  So when inspections resumed in December 2002 Iraq was not violating its 1991 ceasefire agreement in any way.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > f violating a peace treaty or agreement carries not cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end.
> ...




Your weird consideration of statements from politically motivated non-credible persons, as "facts" has been well discussed. 

I disagree. 


My point stands. Saddam was violating the terms on the peace agreement and resumption of hostilities was legally and morally justified. 


I would thank you to not pretend to forget that, or confuse a goal of the war, or a consideration of it's wider strategic importance as the justification, again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> That was all explained to you many times before. Are you pretending to have memory issues?


 But you originally said you bought the nation building argument for war but have since abandoned that one. 

Now it goes something like SH violated the UN Resolution to disarm but that was not true when W started the war in 2003. 

And you tossed in the War on Terror was the reason you attacked a nation that was not part of the terrorists that attacked us. 


So I’m looking for a credible explanation to see if you have anything besides the jokes you have presented thus far.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your weird consideration of statements from politically motivated non-credible persons, as "facts" has been well discussed.



WHAT is not a fact. Read 1441. That’s the FACT I am citing. What are you using for a source that confirms SH was not abiding by UNSC 1441 when W put an end to inspections to start Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE. 

Your opinion does not delete historical documents that are readable and clear. SADDAM was cooperating under 1441 and I cited COLIN Powell in December 2002. He is I hope a credible source for you. 

what are you citing?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> My point stands. Saddam was violating the terms on the peace agreement and resumption of hostilities was legally and morally justified.



Based on what? Was the peace agreement a UN Legal matter? WAS 1441 a related UN legal matter? What gives you the authority to disregard one but enforce the other?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

President Discusses Beginning of Operation ... - George W. Bush White House Archives March 22, 2003 ... And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. 



Correll said:


> Saddam was violating the terms on the peace agreement and resumption of hostilities was legally and morally justified.



Why resume hostilities that will potentially kill scores of innocent people when the Iraq regime and the UN are peacefully engaged in the non-violent ‘mission’ to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction? 

WHY DID YOU SUPPORT KILLING Iraqi CIVILIANS TO ENFORCE A UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION dated to 1991 that ordered the Iraq regime to disarm? 

The moral choice facing adult Americans in March 2003 was whether to verify Iraq was disarmed under the peaceful process that would not get one innocent Iraqi killed.      Or …  support what Bush ultimately decided to do as he says “disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction by military invasion (war.) Of course the war “option” guaranteed that scores of innocent Iraqis will die to achieve the identical result. 

And you have the depravity to call your choice in favor of the war option to achieve the same result where nobody gets killed and nobody kills a moral choice. 


You have no idea what morality is. You should shut up about it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

One of W’s big lie helpers in the ramp up to Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe died today at 88. Review the dastardly things he said before and after the invasion of Iraq disasters and you will begin to understand the depth of the crime of starting a war under false pretenses. 

No one should mourn his death. His legacy is all the needless deaths and dismemberment his arrogance and lies caused.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> I would thank you to not pretend to forget that, or confuse a goal of the war, or a consideration of it's wider strategic importance as the justification, again.



I’m not looking for American wider strategic goals as the justification for the invasion of Iraq. I’m looking for your moral justification for killing innocent Iraqis in a country where violence was not present when the invasion was launched. If nobody is dying, what was so fucking urgent in March 19, 2003 that as you say the resumption  of hostilities had to start right then and there? Why was it moral to start killing civilians on March 19 2003 in Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

B





Correll said:


> I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.



At the time (the end of December 2002) I was able to trust Colin Powell , the Secretary of State, who stated quite clearly that Iraq was cooperating and if that cooperation continued Powell said war was not inevitable. 

It was not a matter of trusting SH. It was a bigger concern whether to believe W when he told us he wanted peace and would only resort to war as a last resort.

The government that wants to start a war should be the government you cannot trust. 

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “









						False pretenses
					

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national...




					publicintegrity.org
				




* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > That was all explained to you many times before. Are you pretending to have memory issues?
> ...




Are you seriously unable to distinguish in your mind, between asking someone their PERSONAL reasons for supporting a war, and asking someone their opinion on the legal and moral justification for a war?

The one is why I was convinced that war was viable policy choice, that could serve long term American national security interests and make the world a better place.

THe other is why I think that starting or more accurately RESUMING war, was morally and "legally" justifiable. 

The War on Terror was part of the STRATEGIC long term goal of the invasion.


You keep trying to simplify, really OVER SIMPLIFY a very complex decision making process down to a child like level.


That bit were you say, "you're looking for a credible explanation"?


That is you using your inability to think clearly in order to be an  ass. You've been given a credible explanation. That you don't agree, does not mean it does not exist. You are either very dishonest, or have a real pathology with your thinking.


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your weird consideration of statements from politically motivated non-credible persons, as "facts" has been well discussed.
> ...




A document is not a fact. It is a statement from the person that wrote the document. 

Saddam did not provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed. He did not turn over the wmds, for destruction. 

That was him failing to live up to the terms of the cease fire. 

BOOM, moral and "legal" justification for resuming hostilities.


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > My point stands. Saddam was violating the terms on the peace agreement and resumption of hostilities was legally and morally justified.
> ...




Based on him NOT providing proof he destroyed the wmds, or provided wmds to be destroyed.


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> President Discusses Beginning of Operation ... - George W. Bush White House Archives March 22, 2003 ... And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry, you're back to playing silly games again. 


Why did you do that? Did it feel like you were losing the argument, if you weren't peppering all your posts with hysterical drama?


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I would thank you to not pretend to forget that, or confuse a goal of the war, or a consideration of it's wider strategic importance as the justification, again.
> ...




WHy do you need to use dishonest and appeal to emotion rhetoric in phrasing your "questions"?


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> B
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> ...




That was a nice demonstration of logical fallacies. Overall a nice Gish Gallop fallacy but with additional Appeal to Authorities and others buried inside of it. 


Consider that nonsense dismissed. My point stands, I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't see




Sums your arguments quite well. You are morally blind when you go with your tribe to kill non-Christians in an unnecessary war of aggression on their land.


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see
> ...




The crux of our disagreement is your refusal to acknowledge the existence of arguments that you disagree with.

THat means that you are stuck in an endless loop of asking questions, but then ignoring the answers. 


You do this so that you can smear  your current political enemies.


As you just demonstated, with your accusation that I am "morally blind".  


The result of this is, that everything you say and do with regards to this, (and I suspect other issues) is irrelevant and cannot result in ANYTHING, because you refuse to actually address the real questions and lessons of the war, (or I suspect, any issue) in pursuit of your real goal, ie, cheap partisan points.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> WHy do you need to use dishonest and appeal to emotion rhetoric in phrasing your "questions"?



What is dishonest about these questions? 

 If nobody is dying, what was it  so fucking urgent on March 19, 2003 that the resumption of hostilities had to start right then and there? Why was it moral to start killing civilians on March 19 2003 in Iraq?

The first fact is - no one anywhere was dying or gonna die from disarming Iraq peacefully. Do you agree? 

The second fact is - many Iraqis will die when the decision is made to disarm Tge regime by bombing and invading their land. Do you agree? 


So why do you still support and have excuse the second  fact that ended up killing half a million Iraqis for no good reason whatsoever?


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > WHy do you need to use dishonest and appeal to emotion rhetoric in phrasing your "questions"?
> ...




1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion. 

2. Also, it is dishonest, because you do not give me a chance to answer it, you immediate provide your own answer.

3. The rest of the shit, I cut so that we don't get distracted from your question and my answer to it.

4. Now you will demonstrate that you did not care about that question, by not responding seriously to my answer.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion.



No. Its the establishment of a fact that should be heavily weighed by decision makers when pondering if it is necessary to take military action where a lot of people will be dying including our own. 

Regarding the WMD threat in Iraq during March 2003 there were two options for dealing with the threat. One option nobody gets killed - your option was to kill innocent people in order  to deal with the threat that you didn’t think was a threat. 


I understand


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion.



It is absolutely true that not one single Iraqi was going to be killed by the UN inspectors that were in Iraq to disarm Iraq. it is absolutely true that the BAATHIST regime was not committing genocide or killing Iraqis when it was in proactive cooperation with the inspectors as required in the 1441 documents that W drafted as a means to avoid war. 

Truth is truth. Your disregard of the truth is duly noted and is archived.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> Also, it is dishonest, because you do not give me a chance to answer it, you immediate provide your own answer.



Answer all you want, liar. 

What is dishonest about these questions?

If nobody is dying, what was it so fucking urgent on March 19, 2003 that the resumption of hostilities had to start right then and there? Why was it moral to start killing civilians on March 19 2003 in Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> As you just demonstated, with your accusation that I am "morally blind".



You are morally blind if you could not see the observable fact that SH was cooperating fully under 1441 so that you can justify killing half a million IRAQIS because their dictator was guilty of not cooperating. It verifies the fact that you are morally depraved when given the chance to have Muslim people killed who could never do anything to kill or harm you. Just stating the facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> A document is not a fact.



You are an idiot. 1441 is legal documentation to establish facts, rules and obligations by the parties involved. 

I own 2 homes and 3 motor vehicles and I keep the documents that prove the fact that I own them in a fireproof safe. On our primary home we had a mortgage where obligations were set forth  on paper using language so that all parties could understand the FACTS of the agreement.

The bank loaned us money we paid it back the house is ours according to the facts. it is not someone’s opinion that I own my home cars and motorcycle.  It is a documented legal and binding fact.

1441 is the same as that. It is a fact. It gave SH a final opportunity to comply. He was required to cooperate by allowing UN inspectors into the country and giving them unrestricted  access to whatever site they chose to visit. SH did that. You cannot disagree with that fact. There was no deadline for final verification of Iraq being fully disarmed. You cannot stipulate additional requirements that are not in the document such as ‘handing over a big pile of WMD that he does not have’ .

Who do you think you are?  No one cares that you couldn’t see SH cooperating under 1441. That was an undisputed observable FACT that all could see except warmongers thirsting for Muslim blood such as you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why did you do that?




I want you to answer the questions as written. 

Why resume hostilities that will potentially kill scores of innocent people when the Iraq regime and the UN are peacefully engaged in the non-violent ‘mission’ to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction?

WHY DID YOU SUPPORT disarming IRAQ In such a way that includes KILLING Iraqi CIVILIANS? 

Its a fair question.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position.



When you take a position like that what do you base it on? How would you know W was sure, fully convinced that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors after 1441?

If Bush was ‘sure’ It was NOT based on what he was told by the REAL intelligence community.

If W really had the certainty you believe he had about those large stockpiles of WMD being hidden in Iraq, he fabricated the certainty and he ignored all the available expertise that was leaning much more in the direction that active WMD was not there as SH clearly stated. 

***** In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a “massive stockpile” of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had “no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.” The “massive stockpile” was just literally made up.

***** In December 2002, Bush declared, “We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon.” That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, “We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.” Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position. YOURS is that somehow, you are sure that that means he was lying




Once a liar to establish a false pretense for invading a Muslim nation that rich in cheap high grade oil reserves is always a liar. 

*****9/7/02  Bush claims a new UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no such report. 

I see no reason to give W the benefit of doubt that he somehow turned holy and honest about Iraq’s WMD.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> Based on him NOT providing proof he destroyed the wmds, or provided wmds to be destroyed.




Your two points are not why Bush Declared war on Iraq and told the inspectors to get out on March 17 2003. Those two points were not requirements contained in 1441. 

The unilaterally destroyed WMD was known when 1441 was passed. So you are wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> Saddam did not provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed. He did not turn over the wmds, for destruction.
> 
> That was him failing to live up to the terms of the cease fire.



What agency wrote the terms of the ceasefire? 

1441 became the most recent applicable terms of the ceasefire. It was drafted and voted in favor by the United States of America and 14 other members in the UN SECURITY Council. ALL FACT. 

SH was not required to provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed by March 17 2003 or any other set date. SH was required to cooperate with inspectors until they were satisfied that the issue could be closed. 

SH was not required by 1441. to turn over wmds, for destruction. Indeed because Iraq immediately provided a declaration in accordance with 1441 that they had no WMD or program’s to make them. How can 1441 require Iraq to hand over WMD when Iraq declared the truth that they did not have WMD? 

W gave the “Curveball” Intel about the mobile bio weapons facilities to the inspectors to verify. That bogus Intel contained specific reference to an actual physical building where it was claimed that secret rooms/false partitions where  truck trailers were being hidden behind fake walls.  Curveball made sketches supposedly showing how the mobile bioweapons facilities were built and kept hidden until moved. The inspectors went to the place where Curveball said he worked and saw the hidden trailers. No such secret rooms existed. Curveball was a liar. 

On 3/7/03 Blix tells UN Security Council and the public that there’s “no evidence” of mobile bioweapons facilities in Iraq” based on examination of W’s strongest evidence that SH was hiding something very deadly. 

Bush was told that the mobile bioweapons facilities did not exist. WIth a little checking W could have found that the CIA didn’t find Curveball  to be a reliable source. 

A month earlier In a radio address to the nation, Bush warned that “firsthand witnesses [read: Curveball] have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.

A couple days before W’s radio address CIA’s Drumheller makes personal appeal to Tenet to delete Curveball’s intel from UN speech by Powell. They leave it in. 

It was getting very obvious in public that if W decided to invade to disarm Iraq of WMD there was not going to be any to find. But W did just that. AS Trump says W lied us into war. A Very dumb and unnecessary war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll #1 answered yes to my question from the following post27097208


NotfooledbyW said:


> 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?



The answer yes to that question can be found in post27097661


Correll said:


> 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.



Correll #2 later denies that nation building would be a just cause for war. 

post27390066 nation building NOT as an argument for war. 





Correll said:


> I never claimed nation building as Just Cause.



But nation building was a justifying argument for war according to Correll #1  most of the time: 

post27089576 nation building as an argument for war. 


Correll said:


> 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.



post27097661 nation building as an argument for war. 


Correll said:


> The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.



post27172141 nation building as an argument for war. 


Correll said:


> Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.



post: 27201989 nation  building as an argument for war. 


Correll said:


> IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.



post27202160 nation building as an argument for war. 


Correll said:


> Do you think that GWBush thought taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic nation was the right policy for America and the World?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.



Its not what the inspectors claimed they were doing in and regarding Iraq’s alleged active WMD programs and stockpiles from November 27 2002 when SH let them in to peacefully enforce 1441 through March 18 2003 when W forced them to leave - It was an observable FACT that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully because no violence, death torture or dismembered and civil rights abuses were happening on Iraqi territory during that time. Then Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe began to disarm Iraq with violence killing and dismemberment and military occupation as the enforcement policy by the US government that was not prepared to do it.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion.
> ...



It is a given that any decision of war should consider the human cost. YOu repeatedly making a point that is an accepted given, especially in a hysterical woman sort of way, is certainly an Appeal to Emotion.


The crux of the problem, the crux of YOUR PROBLEM is your refusal to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of arguments and motives that you disagree with.


Thus this leads you into a loop of asking questions that you think are never answered, because you ignore or erase the answers from your mind. 


You do this, so that you can smear  your enemies for partisan and ideological gain.


The cost of this, is that it is very divisive, ie damaging to the nation's civil society 

AND, it makes sure that NONE of hte actual lessons that could be learned from the war, are every learned. 


Because you are actively working to bury all the truth about the motives for the war, in order to use it as a partisan weapon.


It is also worth noting that in  doing so, you are USING the war dead, in a disrespectful and immoral manner.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion.
> ...




So, since the Ba'athis regime, which you admit had committed genocide and mass murder and wars of conquest in the past, was not actively committing genocide or mass murder or a war of conquest *at that moment*, 

it was fine to leave them in power as sanctions collapsed and they would be able to rearm more effectively and move on to their next attempt to grow their power and influence?


I, and America, disagreed.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Also, it is dishonest, because you do not give me a chance to answer it, you immediate provide your own answer.
> ...




The sanctions were collapsing. Without them Saddam would have been free to rearm and continue his attempt to spread his influence and strive for a leadership role in the Arab world.

And considering that mass murder, genocide, wars of conquest, and anti-Americanism had been part of that process in the past, that seemed, not good.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > As you just demonstated, with your accusation that I am "morally blind".
> ...




His responsibility was to provide proof he had destroyed his wmds, or provide the wmds for destruction. 

He did not do that. He could not do that.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > A document is not a fact.
> ...




THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand. 


Your talk of "thirsting for muslim blood"?

REveals what this is all about to you. Using those that died in the war, for partisan points.


You are disrespecting the dead.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Why did you do that?
> ...




No, you don't. You demonstrated that you know how to do that, ie ask the question seriously, without peppering the "question" with some much Appeal to Emotion bullshit, that is ceases being a question and becomes a sleazy accusation dishonestly in the structure of a question. 


You choose to instead, go for the method that lets you spam demagogic talking points, knowing that I was not going to answer it. 


Because using the deaths of the civilians, for partisan attacks, is what this thread is all about.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> No, you don't



Yes I do. You are avoiding the questions because you have no legitimate or morally acceptable answers. That all this is.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Based on him NOT providing proof he destroyed the wmds, or provided wmds to be destroyed.
> ...




Irrelevant opinion of yours.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.



Is that true for the US military operation to find hidden WMD as well. 

Why did you support a fools errand?


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam did not provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed. He did not turn over the wmds, for destruction.
> ...




you seem determined to focus on an individual tree to the point that you can't see the forest. 


Meanwhile in the real world, Saddam was stupid to destroy the wmds, in secret. 


You can dance around that all you want. The US, Bush, had just cause for the war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> Irrelevant opinion of yours.



How can the points I made be irrelevant when they refute the points you made that you insist are relevant. 

When one’s facts are wrong and dishonest it is extremely relevant to point out the truth in any honest discussion about by all parties.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll #1 answered yes to my question from the following post27097208
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Wow. 


There is a difference between my personal reason for supporting the war, 


and a Just Cause for War. 


That you just realized this, imo, is probably part of your general problem with complexity and your desire to over simply.


Instead of listening and understanding what I actually wrote, you reduced everything down to simplistic "pro-war" talk and lumped it all together. 


And more importantly, I don't think you are capable of stopping that. You might sort of grasp the distinction right now, MAYBE, though you probably won't admit it.


BUT, in a few hours, they will slide together in your mind, and you will make the same point again, is a tomorrow or the next day.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.
> ...




how could they have been "being disarmed" when the weapons were already destroyed?

YOru position is contradictory.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> you seem determined to focus on an individual tree



One tree wrote the surrender agreement with SH in 1991. The same tree wrote 1441 in November 2002. That tree is the United NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL. Do you think it was sitting else?


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > No, you don't
> ...




Nope. As I demonstrated when you  experimented with actually asking questions. I am happy to answer them.

Your choice. Do you want to discuss the issue, some more, so you can go though the loop, or do you want to spam divisive talking points.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.
> ...




Because I did not know that it was a fools errand at the time. 

Note I am not claiming that that search was succeeding, at any point in time. I now know that it was doomed to fail.


You though, are claiming that Iraq was being "peacefully disarmed" at a time, when you know that it was ALREADY disarmed.


That is, double talk, used to justify your pretzel logic.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant opinion of yours.
> ...




Sorry, you cut the context. I don't even know specifically what the points were now. 


Did you do that on purpose because I was kicking your butt?


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > you seem determined to focus on an individual tree
> ...




.... And? 

Oh, am I supposed to be impressed? 


I know I mentioned this, and I don't harp on it, because that is not how I roll, generally BUT.


I think Bush was wrong to go though the un. The UN sucks. The UN can go fuck themselves for all I care.


I admit that the UN was relevant here, because Bush choose to go though them. And I will address them. 


But don't think your saying their name has any emotional impact on me. 


Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something, while not pretending it did not happen or exist. 


Maybe you can learn.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something,




You cannot disagree with facts. You have to refute them. It was a fact that SH cooperated with UN inspectors after 1441. It is a fact that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully while SH was cooperating during that time. All that makes it a fact that SH was not violating his 1991 ceasefire agreement with the UNSC in March 2003 when you and W decided to invade and kill civilians to accomplish the same goal that the UN was accomplishing peacefully. 

Those are all facts not disagreements.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> I think Bush was wrong to go though the un.




What was wrong with going through the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> Oh, am I supposed to be impressed?



No! you are supposed to accept facts not avoid or hide them.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something,
> ...




Stating that something is a "fact" does not mean that other people cannot disagree with it.

Especially when the point you are trying to make, is based on what other people thought in the PAST. 


EVEN if you "prove" that you were right about something in the past, it is irrelevant, because the other people in question, even if you convince them NOW in the present, those other people still thought what they thought in the PAST.



That you seem to believe that you can somehow erase their past beliefs and decision making, so that you can attribute negative motives to them, 


is you being delusional. 


That  you put all this effort into this, so that you can smear your partisan enemies, is pathetic.


It also, reveals that you have given up on advancing your ideas by making the argument that they are BETTER, than the ideas of your  enemies.


You must really be intimidated by Trump and his ideas, to go such a long way around, to find a justification for talking shit about him and his supporters.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I think Bush was wrong to go though the un.
> ...




Lots, imo. But it is irrelevant to this thread.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something, while not pretending it did not happen or exist.



If you don’t agree with the reality that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully from November 2002 through March 17 2003 then you cannot accept the fact that Iraq was very peaceful during that time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> There is a difference between my personal reason for supporting the war,
> 
> and a Just Cause for War.




Pretty much sums up why you deserve the label of being a fascist.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something, while not pretending it did not happen or exist.
> ...




I don't care whether or not Iraq was "peaceful" at that time. That is not the way war works. 


You are being crazy.


----------



## Correll (Jul 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > There is a difference between my personal reason for supporting the war,
> ...




No, it doesn't. 

Indeed that was a stupid thing to even say.


I supported the war because a good argument, imo, was made as to how it could serve long term US interests. 


A Just Cause for War, is a separate matter. 


Just because a war has a Just Cause does not mean it is a good idea.


Your inability to do nuance, is pretty universal isn't it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> You though, are claiming that Iraq was being "peacefully disarmed" at a time, when you know that it was ALREADY disarmed.



You are a liar -  I didnt know that Iraq was ALREADY disarmed on March 17 2003. I, like 60 percent of Americans wanted the honest answer to be determined by the peaceful process so innocent Iraqis would not suffer the consequences unless it became 100% clear that Iraq was hiding something and deserved to be taken out with more support from the rest of the world. 


I agreed with Senator Biden who voted to give Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq at the time about a 
Month before the invasion.

*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.* Biden 

Blix was also talking a few more months to resolve the outstanding issue and then begin long term monitoring according to the terms of his surrender agreement.

So I didnt know SH was not stockpiling WMD somehow. But a few more months of peaceful inspections was not fools 
Mission as you say. It was a peaceful mission that would have achieved the truth without killing anybody to get it.

Stop lying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't care whether or not Iraq was "peaceful" at that time. That is not the way war works.



If you don’t care whether or not Iraq was peaceful why do you disagree with the reality that at that time it was very peaceful.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> I supported the war because a good argument, imo, was made as to how it could serve long term US interests.



You have no right just because you are a white Christian American to kill innocent people to serve a long term interest. I’m sure Hitler believed invading Poland and France and bombing the shit out England was in Germany’s long term interest. 

Hitler was a fascist not a great German patriot in case you didn’t know.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> Stating that something is a "fact" does not mean that other people cannot disagree with it.



This is a fact: 

 It was a fact that SH cooperated with UN inspectors after 1441. It is a fact that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully while SH was cooperating during that time.


if you thought SH was not cooperating and it was not peaceful in Iraq at that time,  you were suckered into believing the lies and propaganda from right wing warmongering white evangelicals and right wing talk radio. They were wrong. Just because you were suckered by the false pretenses for war you cannot now declare the truth about what happened back then doesn’t matter because you and your likeminded warmongering Republican know-nothings had it all wrong and you never can admit it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> supported the war because a good argument, imo, was made as to how it could serve long term US interests.



If the purpose of the war was long term US interest, do you think the innocent Iraqis you killed had a long term interest in  something called living. Only a fascist would put nationalistic interest over an innocent person’s right to life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't care whether or not Iraq was "peaceful" at that time. That is not the way war works.



When the good nations have to choose war they are not supposed to be the ones that disturb the peace. You should care. You were lucky enough to be born or brought to a good nation. And it’s the most powerful nation on earth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> Lots, imo. But it is irrelevant to this thread.



The UN Security Council and UN are referenced in the AUMF that gave W the opportunity to choose war if necessary. Is the US Congress and the AUMF irrelevant to this discussion too?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 3, 2021)

****  MARCH 06 2003 - PRESIDENT BUSH “I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.

****  President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

**** Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”



*** DECEMBER 2002: SECRETARY POWELL:  They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues

*** SECRETARY POWELL:  We've never said that war is inevitable.  The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution.  resolution? 

***  Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos 

*** SECRETARY POWELL 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.

But a warmonger claims in post 27207599 that reality at the time does not matter or exist. History must be rewritten. 



Correll said:


> The inspectors were NOT peacefully disarming Iraq. The WMDs, we now know, were already destroyed. Thus, the claim that they were doing it, was not true. It was already done.



It was not known to the inspectors too: . 

They now know SH was telling the truth that Iraq was clear of WMD.  If the inspectors had three more months to resolve the unilaterally destroyed WMD in 1991 then half a million Iraqis would not be dead - if W had kept his fucking word. 

Nearly 5000 Americans who served in the military would not have died in Iraq if W’s representatives didn’t go to the US SENATE to deliberately misinform the American people with updates like this:

      * Mr. Armitage in a written statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq,  a few days after the Blix sixty day report, these exact words, “The president was clear on Tuesday. He has not yet made a decision to resort to military action.” 

     *JANUARY 30 2003  U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, And the United States continued from that point on to support the continuation of inspections. *

If the inspections were averting the necessity for war on January 30 2003 it is a fact that by March 10 2003 there was nothing but improved inspections and cooperation from Iraq. That fact should not have caused or forced W to draft a second Resolution for a vote in the UN Security Council offering to cancel a US invasion, and leave SH in power, ONLY if the inspectors would declare Iraq disarmed by a March 17 deadline. If the inspectors could not, W wanted the UN to support whatever military action W decided to take. 

The deadline date was rejected by the UNSC because although the inspectors were reporting proactive cooperation from the regime they also reported that in order to (1) verify that the unilaterally destroyed 1980s materials were verifiably destroyed and (2) to advance the enhanced inspections into southern Iraq  -  it would take a few more months. Say by June 2003. 

Half a million Iraqis and 5000 Americans were killed in a needless war because W Could not give inspectors three more months to finish their work in a process that was going on for 12 years. FACT! 

Biden addressed those three months in February. 

***** Senator Joe 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.
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq. 

Wise man - that Joe BIden.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.



The invading army was never going to find the WMD’s.  It was as you say a fools errand that killed half a million Iraqis. 

At least the inspectors on a fools errand were not killing and maiming and breaking things while in it. 


That you support the killing spree fools errand says a lot about you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your dismissal of my belief that Saddam could not be trusted to truly cooperate, does not change that fact that that was something I believed then and it was a part of my thought process that led me to support war.



You did not test your belief and you ability to  acquire truth about whether SH would cooperate with inspectors or not by using easily observable reality and the massively reported confirmation that SH was cooperating from the Administration that was promoting the possible need for war if SH did not cooperate with one last final round of inspections. 

The White House was promoting peaceful resolution of the Inspections process all the way up to March 10 2003. 

Your belief that no cooperation was possible from SH with inspectors on March 10 2003 was a self delusion or the result that you paid no attention to public knowledge throughout the ramp up to war.

Your belief on this matter is no different than a belief that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and died on the cross and was resurrected three days later and spoke to his followers..

You believe it because you want to. 

Your deliberate invalid belief led you to support and continue to support the killing of half a million Iraqis yet you do not appear to have reflected upon WWJD. 


When the head of the Catholic Church said let the inspections continue I can accept the inference that is what Jesus would have wanted done. Not what the white evangelical Christian nationalists in America wanted done.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> Powell being satisfied that Saddam was "cooperating" with inspectors by letting them travel around and look for shit, was not convincing.



In the legal sense Powell’s definition of of cooperating was sufficient that it meant war was not inevitable. So it matters not what a warmongers definition of cooperation might be. In the legal sense Powell was satisfied that SH was meeting the terms of 1441.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You though, are claiming that Iraq was being "peacefully disarmed" at a time, when you know that it was ALREADY disarmed.
> ...



Stop right there. I clearly did not claim that you KNEW it then, my point was that you KNOW it now. Thus my point was about your claiming it as a fact, when you KNOW know that it is false. 


You keep playing stupid games like that. Either you are purposefully and dishonestly missing my point, in order to dodge and muddle, 

or you are far less precise than you pretend to be. 


Either way, it makes your entire style of minute... narrative, impossible and thus worthless.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care whether or not Iraq was "peaceful" at that time. That is not the way war works.
> ...




Probably because you asked me or in response to a point you made. 

Then you assumed that was a motive for war, and built on top of that mistake an accusation to make against, me, and then made it and still believe it, even though it was refuted AND, will use it again, over and over again, because you are either dishonest or deluded.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I supported the war because a good argument, imo, was made as to how it could serve long term US interests.
> ...



We've gone over this a lot. YOu are playing stupid now. 

My support and the legal and moral Justification for a Just War, are two distinct and different things.


That you keep trying to conflate them is just you playing stupid games so you have an excuse to insult me as part of the logical fallacy of Proof by Ridicule used as propaganda.


That you so often pepper this portion of your exercise with references to race and religion, is just you being racist and a religious bigot.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Stating that something is a "fact" does not mean that other people cannot disagree with it.
> ...



No, it's not. Iraq was NOT "being disarmed". If you believed that at the time, you were wrong.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > supported the war because a good argument, imo, was made as to how it could serve long term US interests.
> ...



Was FDR a fascist? He supported the entry of America into WWII, to serve long term US interests. 

Or is your "definition" of fascist, just a handful of shit you throw at me, like a monkey?

Do you want to discuss seriously, the idea of what is a valid reason to support war, or are you just here to throw shit like a monkey?


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.
> ...




No, it doesn't. You see it and then make up shit in your head. Very self serving shit.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care whether or not Iraq was "peaceful" at that time. That is not the way war works.
> ...




Whoa. "Good nations"? THat is a new concept to introduce, at post 2000 in this thread.


Is this the way you think the world should be? THat "good nations" should NEVER "disturb peace"? 

If so, just say so. Drop this shit show about a past war, and make your case for the way you think the world SHOULD be.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Lots, imo. But it is irrelevant to this thread.
> ...



The way it is supposed to work, is that Congress is supposed to declare war, and then the President is supposed to wage it.

It was set up that way, for reasons. It is not a good idea to wage war by committee. You need a leader, not debate. 

Congress has chosen to stop doing it that way that makes sense.

That is on them. They choose to make themselves less relevant.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> t was not known to the inspectors too: .
> 
> They now know SH was telling the truth that Iraq was clear of WMD. If the inspectors had three more months to resolve the unilaterally destroyed WMD in 1991 then half a million Iraqis would not be dead - if W had kept his fucking word.




You are ASSuming that the inspectors would have been willing to go out on a limb, certify that Iraq was wmd free, and make the case strongly enough to convince a man, that was deeply convinced that Saddam was an evil and vile mass murderer who needed to be removed from power and who had wmds. 


ME? I assume that the inspectors would have made a report, giving themselves some ass covering incase afterwards that Saddam used some wmds, and asking for more time to be more certain and that Bush would have been faced with giving them more time, "knowing" that the inspectors were anti-war and would never admit failure or moving ahead with war. And sooner or later, he would stop giving them more time.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You did not test your belief and you ability to acquire truth about whether SH would cooperate with inspectors or not by using easily observable reality and the massively reported confirmation that SH was cooperating from the Administration




Do you believe that voting should be limited to people that are able and can be trusted to do that type of thing, with all important issues? or just warmaking issues?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> Do you believe that voting should be limited to people that are able and can be trusted to do that type of thing, with all important issues? or just warmaking issues?




No.  Not at all. You have the right to be an ignorant and duped voter. Its the American Way.


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Most Americans with any knowledge of the Middle East opposed the invasion BEFORE the fact..

That includes oilmen, expats, diplomats and historians.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe that voting should be limited to people that are able and can be trusted to do that type of thing, with all important issues? or just warmaking issues?
> ...




Well then, as you seem to want that done, (with all important issues or just war?), yet you want to let those that CAN'T  or DON'T do it, vote,  what is your answer?


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




That's nice. Now run along and go play.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are ASSuming that the inspectors would have been willing to go out on a limb, certify that Iraq was wmd free, and make the case strongly enough to convince a man, that was deeply convinced that Saddam was an evil and vile mass murderer who needed to be removed from power and who had wmds.




You are full of shit and here is why I don’t have to assume what W or the inspectors would have done if the inspectors were satisfied that Iraq possessed no WMD on or before March 17, 2003 or a few months later after that. I have their words. 


**** MARCH 06 2003 - PRESIDENT BUSH “I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.

**** President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

**** Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”


BLIX *** Mr. President,
Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; 





__





						Recent Items
					





					www.un.org
				




*** it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.



I cannot know fir certain that W invaded Iraq if the inspectors were permitted to complete their work on June 17 2003. 


I’m saying W would have been forced by then to produce the physical evidence somehow that the WMD that did not exist actual existed. We found out the hard way by killing half a million Iraqis because warmongering Anericans bemieved W had the physical evidence that is impossible fir him have.

Three extra months of inspections would have crumbled the justification for military action because doubt in W’s evidence was growing higher every day.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> Well then, as you seem to want that done, (with all important issues or just war?), yet you want to let those that CAN'T or DON'T do it, vote, what is your answer?



What is yiour coherent question?


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You are ASSuming that the inspectors would have been willing to go out on a limb, certify that Iraq was wmd free, and make the case strongly enough to convince a man, that was deeply convinced that Saddam was an evil and vile mass murderer who needed to be removed from power and who had wmds.
> ...




"Forced by what" exactly? By whom?

YOu are making assumptions. Which is fine. But you are pretending that they are facts and judging others for not agreeing with you.

That is you being an ass.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Well then, as you seem to want that done, (with all important issues or just war?), yet you want to let those that CAN'T or DON'T do it, vote, what is your answer?
> ...




Jeeze, maybe if you didn't cut away EVERYTHING, you would know.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> I clearly did not claim that you KNEW it then, my point was that you KNOW it now.




I knew with absolute certainty that  Iraq was being peacefully disarmed in January 2002 after Colin Powell said SH was cooperating. I did not know that SH was NOT hiding WMD from inspectors until W was forced to admit it in 2004 after told the world that he was disarming Iraq using military force and killing innocent civilians.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> Jeeze, maybe if you didn't cut away EVERYTHING, you would know.



Actually if you wrote a coherent question I could answer it. I posted the entire question but if you need to see the fluff and shut you embellish your posts you can click on it to refresh your apparently lack luster memory.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I clearly did not claim that you KNEW it then, my point was that you KNOW it now.
> ...




And you were wrong. 

Note how I don't use that to pretend that you were not operating in good faith at the time or to invenst some other reason that you must have really had, cause, reasons. 


I'm not an asshole. YOu were wrong, but it was what you really thought at the time and your actions based on that belief stand as being based on that belief.


Not something I made up just to be a troll.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Jeeze, maybe if you didn't cut away EVERYTHING, you would know.
> ...




My question was clear. Answer it. Cease the stupid games.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> "Forced by what" exactly? By whom?



The UNSC. W was required to give all  the evidence he had to the inspectors. Up to the date of the invasion W said they gave the inspectors all the evidence they had. The inspectors found none of it to be credible. Three more months of indirections would forced W abandon if a claim that he had evidence when he announced his final decision disarm Iraq by killing civilians.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "Forced by what" exactly? By whom?
> ...




An interesting assumption. One that I never heard mentioned at the time. 


Oh, well, moot now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> And you were wrong.



How am I wrong? It is an indisputable fact that the process of disarming Iraq under 1441 from November 2002 through March 17 2003 was peaceful. Absolutely and totally peaceful. .


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And you were wrong.
> ...




Don't play stupid. We covered that. 


My point stands. YOu were wrong, but in good faith. So, your motive for your past position is fine.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> An interesting assumption. One that I never heard mentioned at the time.




Its not an assumption. The US was providing intelligence to the inspectors who shot it all down and W said the following when he announced that killing civilians was about to commence. 


“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.



But Mr Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.









						George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack
					

Former US President George W Bush says he still has a "sickening feeling" because no WMDs were found in Iraq, in memoirs due to appear next week.



					www.google.com
				




 "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> We covered that.



When did you inform me the inspections  period involved violence? 

Never. So you are a liar.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting assumption. One that I never heard mentioned at the time.
> ...




People are sometimes wrong, even when they are very sure. An important lesson to be sure. 

Have you ever considered the implications for yourself?


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > We covered that.
> ...




Obviously not what I was referring to. So, you are the liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> Obviously not what I was referring to.



What are you referring to other than the peaceful disarming period under 1441 which experienced zero violence in Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> People are sometimes wrong, even when they are very sure.



I am not wrong you cannot find words that explains why ir what I am wrong about. IF You could you would.


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Are you familiar with Operation Mass Appeal? The war was absolutely based on a lie and for the benefit of Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously not what I was referring to.
> ...




The part you cut. YOu know, that part you cut because you didn't want to address it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> YOu were wrong, but it was what you really thought at the time and your actions based on that belief stand as being based on that belief.




What are you saying is what I REALLY thought at the time? I did not KNOW that Iraq had zero WMD until after the invasion when that FACT and TRUTH came out as the body count was growing  and growing and growing.

And the clincher was W ADMITTING IT : 

"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.









						George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack
					

Former US President George W Bush says he still has a "sickening feeling" because no WMDs were found in Iraq, in memoirs due to appear next week.



					www.google.com
				




 "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > YOu were wrong, but it was what you really thought at the time and your actions based on that belief stand as being based on that belief.
> ...


The Iraqis  DID have massive stores of Nitrogen Mustard gas ----AND  they were 
desperate to get into biological warfare and  BAATHIST  PIG  Saddam did murder 
MASSIVELY tens to hundreds of thousands of  Kurds and Shiites in Iraq.   
 IMVO---that's WMD.     "didn't find"?     he shipped lots of his stuff to fellow 
 Baathist pig ----BASHAR ASSAD


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jul 4, 2021)

Corell — unlike the Trump supporters I know and still personally respect — does not give a simple and honest answer to anything. He cannot just say, “Yeah, I was wrong,” and leave it at that.

_Most_ ignorant and then oh-so-easily-led North Americans believed the _‘patriotic’_ (snake-) oil-and-MIC profiteering / imperialist lies of Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld. One need not personally profit from a war to “defend” it as wrongheadedly as Hillary and Biden and the DNC did.

North Americans (and Republicans in particular) supported the illegal and absurd war and occupation of Iraq — at least so long as they thought they could get away with it! Trump more crudely and much later criticized the war, arguing (ridiculously) that the U.S. should have just “Taken the Oil.” This has always been our real and most essential motivation in the Middle East. But Baby Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” turned out to be the boondoggle even Obama warned against. Bernie & genuine anti-imperialists were absolutely right about this war, as about many other American adventures abroad.

IMO, you had to be a naive idiot _not_ to see through the lies that were being told then about “WMD” and “Saddam’s support to Al Qaeda” and the “existential threat” posed by Saddam to the U.S. (or Israel) by our MSM.

Today similar lies are still being told … about Russian “aggression” in Crimea and Syria, and about Iranian “imperialism” in Iraq and Syria. Biden is continuing most of Trump’s international sanctions and propaganda campaigns, trying where possible to make them palatable to our allies. Uncle Sam continues to base troops without even a shred of legality in Northeast Syria. We illegally bomb in both Iraq and Syria. We sanction devastated Syria and prevent it trading normally with its neighbors. Syria — that utterly ruined country we did so much to destroy in the first place by our support to Sunni fundamentalists in its terrible Civil War.

But now that Biden has adopted Trump/Pompeo’s final “Lame Duck” propaganda lies about “genocide” and “slave labor” — in _China_ — patriotic “American Exceptionalist” fervor may prove _far more dangerous_. China is a real economic competitor and a power that really hinders the U.S. desire for a unipolar world where Wall Street has “full spectrum” dominance. It is an alien authoritarian one party state-capitalist society to North Americans, which makes Biden’s “democratic” pretensions more appealing. Trump Republicans will continue to pressure Democrats for harder policies … that could easily lead to serious warfare in Asia, as well as a new round of proxy wars in Africa and elsewhere.

These are just some of my own passing reflections on this July 4th, 2021  “All American” — ??? — holiday.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > YOu were wrong, but it was what you really thought at the time and your actions based on that belief stand as being based on that belief.
> ...



Which is what I said. Your reposting it so you can try to spin it into an attack on Bush is  you being a troll.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Corell — unlike the Trump supporters I know and still personally respect — does not give a simple and honest answer to anything. He cannot just say, “Yeah, I was wrong,” and leave it at that.




Notfooledbyw, is the one not accepting my stated reasons for supporting the war at that time.

He is trying to dismiss my stated reasons, because they were proven wrong at a later date and thus assign new reasons to my support such as being "bloodthirsty".

He also often mentions my race and faith while doing so, implying...something negative about them both. 


That you are attacking ME, for not "leaving it at that" is, at best a fine example of ingroup bias, and at worse you being a dishonest troll.


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Corell — unlike the Trump supporters I know and still personally respect — does not give a simple and honest answer to anything. He cannot just say, “Yeah, I was wrong,” and leave it at that.
> 
> _Most_ ignorant and then oh-so-easily-led North Americans believed the _‘patriotic’_ (snake-) oil-and-MIC profiteering / imperialist lies of Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld. One need not personally profit from a war to “defend” it as wrongheadedly as Hillary and Biden and the DNC did.
> 
> ...



I have NO RECOLLECTION of anyone suggesting that Iraq would attack the USA or that
he supported  Al Quaeda.    He not only advocated attacking Israel  ALL HIS CAREER---
he even shot off some silly scuds.    The FACT is that the BAATHIST movement ---very
much supported by Saddam is a danger to the world-----it is ARABIAN NAZISM----
and a danger to Kurds.    For my part they could do whatever to the shitty shiites of Iran---
but Saddam ALSO murdered shiites in Iraq.    Iraq, CERTAINLY, threatened  Israel for 
fun and political popularity


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jul 4, 2021)

Guess what Correll? My comment was not about you or NotfooledbyW .

I haven’t read and truly don’t care about all your “reasons” / “excuses” for supporting the Iraq War / Occupation boondoggle, nor about (irosie91 ’s) defense of little nuclear armed Israel against the “Nazi” Saddam. I don’t know and don’t care whether you or she do or do not agree with “RINOs” like Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld.

My comment is a “July 4th Meditation” on a much larger question raised implicitly by the OP, concerning deeply-rooted “patriotic” pro-imperialist attitudes of North Americans in general.


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> > Corell — unlike the Trump supporters I know and still personally respect — does not give a simple and honest answer to anything. He cannot just say, “Yeah, I was wrong,” and leave it at that.
> ...



Iraq was NO threat to Israel.. Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.

Read Bibi's Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> Notfooledbyw, is the one not accepting my stated reasons for supporting the war at that time.



I’m not accepting your lies and falsehoods that you are trying to sell in the current discussion and none of your lies and falsehoods have anything to do with me having the benefit hindsight. 

Your basic lie that “ SH poked the bear” during the 1441 inspections and SH did not cooperate with inspectors and the inspections were not peaceful are lies. They were lies if you believed them at the time and they are lies when you repeat them as fact the past couple months or so.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Notfooledbyw, is the one not accepting my stated reasons for supporting the war at that time.
> ...



Sure you are. Your denial is silly.


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Paine 1949 said:
> ...


you are remarkably uneducated.    When the islamo-/nazi  hero  Adolf   wrote  
Mein Kampf in 1925 he was------according to people like you,   no threat to anyone.  
Some people did recognize the threat.     Saddam Hussein was a leader in the  
ARAB NAZI BAATHISM MOVEMENT.    He was already committing genocide against the shiites 
in southern Iraq and the kurds in northern Iraq in emulation of the islamo/nazi hero 
as you danced on the dead bodies of kurdish children rotting in the sun.   You have 
parroted the very same islamo/nazi propaganda that I read as a child that was LEFT 
over from the 1930s-----SOS  (same old shit).    As a kid I lived in a town walking distance 
from the town named  EDISON----after Adolf's dear pal-----Thomas Edison.   The old 
propaganda pamphlets were ALL OVER the place


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Baathism is a big zilch..  The Zionists were mostly Socialists and Bolshevics.

The Kurds that were gassed at Halabja were caught in the cross fire with Iran.

Saddam was hanged for the same thing Churchill and Arthur Harris did in 1920.

Israel wanted Saddam taken out. Same crap from Clean Break Strategy and the PNAC letter to Clinton in 1998.


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

Is Ba'athism still a force in the Middle East? - Quora








						Is Ba'athism still a force in the Middle East?
					

Answer (1 of 5): Yes, absolutely.  The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party remains the governing party in Syria as the largest party in the National Progressive Front Coalition, with the NPF holding 200 seats in the People's Council of Syria, 172 of which belong to the Ba’ath Party.  Ba’athist principles...



					www.quora.com
				



*Although a “Baath party” is still the ruling organization in Syria, Baathism is a dead and buried ideology and stands for nothing more than a vehicle for thuggish, cult-driven authoritarianism. *

By all definitions, Baathism strives for a unified Arab state with a socialist, centrally driven economic model, an enlightened public, secularism, and opposition to imperialism, zionism, and political pluralism.

Ba'athism: A Left Or Right Wing Ideology? - Soviet-Empire ...
www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=52713
Ba'athism was a concept of Arab Nationalism/Socialism which was very popular in first stage of cold war among arab nations. But has nothing to do with communist/leftist ideals. On the contrary in these countries (iraq, egypt, syria) arab nationalist regimes killed a lot o …


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

what does   BAATHISM 


surada said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


What does  "BAATHISM IS A BIG ZILCH"   mean in your scantily informed brain?.    
Zionists DEFINITELY tended toward socialism as did the ESSENES, that christian 
scholars INSISTED  represented Jesus for MANY DECADES.    Bolsheviks murdered 
Jews.     BTW   how has that  Jesus the Essene theory been going?    How about John 
the Baptist?      The Bolshevik jews is a meme leftover from the islamo nazi propaganda 
of the 1930s ---70s.    Some of the stuff came out of Baathist Syria and Baathist Egypt.


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> what does   BAATHISM
> 
> 
> surada said:
> ...



Link posted above.


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

PS-----the filth of BAATHISM has been overshadowed but NOT DESTROYED
by the stench of islamic antisemitism in the   "arab world"     ---In fact in the 
entire   "islamic world"


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

Why Did Russian Jews Support the Bolshevik Revolution ...









						Why Did Russian Jews Support the Bolshevik Revolution?
					

Discover the story behind the Bolshevik Revolution and why so many Russian Jews supported it.




					www.tabletmag.com
				




Oct 25, 2017 · Discover the story behind the Bolshevik Revolution and why so many Russian Jews supported it. ... who opposed mass Jewish migration to Palestine and the immediate creation of …


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> PS-----the filth of BAATHISM has been overshadowed but NOT DESTROYED
> by the stench of islamic antisemitism in the   "arab world"



The Arabs mostly ignore Israel.


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

Winston Churchill : Zionism verses Bolshevism 1920
					

Churchill and the Bolsheviks, two sides of the womb called the Sabbatean Frankish Israel, to birth the equally unclean Templar Jerusalem



					thebridgelifeinthemix.info


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > PS-----the filth of BAATHISM has been overshadowed but NOT DESTROYED
> ...


correll-----do not laugh-----surada never met an arab or a south east Asian or---
REVERT/PERVERT in the USA.    He/she/it----has never heard a Khutbah Jumaat feces fling


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



That's fine. Is he also unaware of the FIVE arab israeli wars that occurred in the last 70 years?


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> Winston Churchill : Zionism verses Bolshevism 1920
> 
> 
> Churchill and the Bolsheviks, two sides of the womb called the Sabbatean Frankish Israel, to birth the equally unclean Templar Jerusalem
> ...


thanks for the REVIEW     Its been years since I read that really hardcore islamo nazi shit upon 
which you feed and parrot


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...



Read Moshe Dayan.

BOLSHEVISM AND THE JEWS
www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/371/bolshevism-jews
The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919 were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ‘Socialist’


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...




Sorry, classic anti-semetic nazism is such a fringe that I cannot muster any interest in your...world view. 

It is all I can do do skim your post to see if there is anything of interest in them. 

I do not say this to be offensive. You have to know that you are completely marginalized. 

The other guy, errr, NOT, he at least represents a large and powerful political movement, ie anti-American lefties. His words thus are relevant to the issues of the day, even if they are irrational and incoherent.


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



I'm not an antiSemite. I don't like Israel's government.

Trump is as stupid a man as ever lived.. That's why his support has dwindled to 1/3 of the Republican party.


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




I don't care about your rationalizations. 

And Trump is irrelevant to this thread. COMPLETELY.


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Have you ever been anywhere in the Middle East? Have you been to Baghdad or Damascus even once?


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




Nope. Why do you ask?


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


when Communism was a UTOPIAN IDEOLOGY of ECONOMICS     Anyone interested ---read the old UTOPIA BOOKS of the 18th and 19th centuries and remember the ESSENES----Jesus-like


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



The Essenes were peculiar.. That's why they left to live in that hellish environment.


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


"peculiar" ?    They lived an absolutely  SOCIALIST LIFESTYLE in order to escape the 
filth of Roman rule.    They seem to have managed very well  even developing a bit 
of industry in BITUMEN.     They were,  CLEARLY, Pharisees with lots of mysticism 
thrown in.    Like Jesus---they despised the  ROMAN SHILL   high priests and Herod.   
In order to understand the NT,   read it.    As to the Mysticism-----must have been the 
desert heat.     Remember what it did to  Ezekiel    It is actually reasonable that  christian 
scholars of the past would associate them with Jesus.


----------



## surada (Jul 4, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



So what? Read what Josephus said about them.









						The Essenes: A Community Greater than the Sum of its Parts - The Classical Difference
					

Most of what we know about the Essenes comes from the literature found at Qumran, known popularly as The Dead Sea Scrolls, and from the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus, a Roman historian, Philo, and a few other Roman and Greek writers. The Essenes, interestingly, are not mentioned in...




					www.classicaldifference.com


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

surada said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


your citation is a bit of christian sophistry  CLAIMING THE ESSENES.     The Baptism 
thing is nothing more than the obligatory   MIKVAH  rules ---ie  TYPICALLY PHARISEE.  
I saw nothing in Philo or Josephus that is notable.   There were several similar 
"monastic groups"    at that time     As to the rejection of the  CONTEMPORARY  temple 
priests------same thing---the pharisees DESPISED THE ROMAN SHILLS in the Temple who 
also DESPISED the Pharisees.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jul 4, 2021)

And what do ancient Essenes have to do with this OP, which is all about who supported Baby Bush’s War in Iraq?


----------



## Correll (Jul 4, 2021)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> And what do ancient Essenes have to do with this OP, which is all about who supported Baby Bush’s War in Iraq?



1. Surda is trying to  justify his blaming the war on the jews. 

2. The war was AMERICA'S war.


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> And what do ancient Essenes have to do with this OP, which is all about who supported Baby Bush’s War in Iraq?


ancient essenes are very important-----they were pharisee jews who HIPPIED OUT---
took their sandaled feet to the desert to live with LOVE in communes.   Some christian 
scholars checked the dead sea scrolls  (from the essenes)  DESPERATELY looking for clues 
that Jesus was amongst them-----it didn't happen.    John the Baptist is more likely----an 
OBSESSIVE bather  which was another aspect of the essene 'culture'.    I had the opportunity 
to actually try to read some of the scrolls----very standard hebrew with COMPLAINTS 
about the kids marrying gentile girls


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> > And what do ancient Essenes have to do with this OP, which is all about who supported Baby Bush’s War in Iraq?
> ...


the jews ALSO steal rainclouds from IRAN !!!!!!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> The other guy, errr, NOT, he at least represents a large and powerful political movement, ie anti-American lefties.



what’s anti-American about me?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> He also often mentions my race and faith while doing so, implying...something negative about them both.



It was white Christian evangelicals that provided much of the support for W to invade Iraq and kill half a million mostly non-Christians. Black Christian evangelicals did not support it much if not at all. 

There is a certain racial distinction regarding Christian support for killing non/Christians in Iraq. 

In 2015 Trump politically latched onto W’s white evangelical former war supporters who must not mind that he says W lied us into a stupid war that cost us 7 trillion and killed half a million mostly non/Christians for absolutely no good reason. 

WHEN Trump says W lied and was disastrously mistaken he is saying that his current batch of white evangelicals that supported W’s Iraq mess were duped and suckers for BUSH’s lie 

Trump also is saying that black evangelical Christian Americans were  right to oppose the stupid war. Black evangelical Christians were right not to support the needless killing half a million non-white non-Christian human beings. 

So when an old enough white Christian Trump supporter whines and bitches about the truth being told about white evangelical Christians who supported and continue to support the unreasonable and unnecessary and unprepared Blitzkrieg Shock and awe of Iraq on March 19 2003 it is not really an adverse and negative IMPLICATION against all white people. Nor is it negatively implying anything against all Christian Americans. 

It is the same implication that TRUMP  has made which is a positive commentary for bLack and white Americans with many of them being Christians who did not support killing half a million non-white non-Christians in Iraq to disarm Iraq of WMD or any other made up reason such as nation building.  

DJT is a white Christian (I saw him hold a Bible) who has figured out the truth about the disaster of Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe Into Iraq and I commend DJT for that. 

So how and why does Correll complain that I am attacking his race and his religion when I am actually commending  all the white and Christian patriotic Americans who support the truth about Iraq and agree with DJT who agrees with all the patriotic black and white Christians who understand that invading Iraq was a catastrophic huge mistake.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> And Trump is irrelevant to this thread. COMPLETELY.



Trump is one of the most relevant persons on earth Correll to opine based on the facts on the net worth of the killing of half a million Iraqis due to the $5 to $7 trillion stupid invasion of Iraq in MARCH 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Here is the chronology of @Correll’s disinformation method for trying to flip the fact of his failure in honest debate to be honest every time his argument gets stuck. 

post27402034 W’s Intel shot down by inspectors begins 


NotfooledbyW said:


> On 3/7/03 Blix tells UN Security Council and the public that there’s “no evidence” of mobile bioweapons facilities in Iraq” based on examination of W’s strongest evidence that SH was hiding something very deadly.
> 
> Bush was told that the mobile bioweapons facilities did not exist. WIth a little checking W could have found that the CIA didn’t find Curveball to be a reliable source.




post27402034 Curveball WMD claims were bogus


NotfooledbyW said:


> A couple days before W’s radio address CIA’s Drumheller makes personal appeal to Tenet to delete Curveball’s intel from UN speech by Powell. They leave it in.
> 
> It was getting very obvious in public that if W decided to invade to disarm Iraq of WMD there was not going to be any to find. But W did just that. AS Trump says W lied us into war. A Very dumb and unnecessary war.




post: 27403057 fools errand excuse for Correll but it called doublespeak for me!


Correll said:


> Because I did not know that it was a fools errand at the time.
> 
> Note I am not claiming that that search was succeeding, at any point in time. I now know that it was doomed to fail.
> 
> ...




post27404819 Correll was told I did not know that Iraq was ALREADY disarmed


NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar - I didnt know that Iraq was ALREADY disarmed on March 17 2003. I, like 60 percent of Americans wanted the honest answer to be determined by the peaceful process so innocent Iraqis would not suffer the consequences unless it became 100% clear that Iraq was hiding something



post27414417 Correll falsely denies saying what he actually said. (A very common tactic also accompanied by changing the meanings of words) 


Correll said:


> I clearly did not claim that you KNEW it then, my point was that you KNOW it now. Thus my point was about your claiming it as a fact, when you KNOW know that it is false.




post27414902 I knew when W admits the WMD was not there 


NotfooledbyW said:


> . I did not know that SH was NOT hiding WMD from inspectors until W was forced to admit it in 2004 after told the world that he was disarming Iraq using military force and killing innocent civilians.



Correll lies saying he knew what I really thought 18 years ago. 


Correll said:


> YOu were wrong, but it was what you really thought at the time and your actions based on that belief stand as being based on that belief.




post27415312 I tell Correll again that  I did not KNOW that Iraq had zero WMD until after the invasion. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> What are you saying is what I REALLY thought at the time? I did not KNOW that Iraq had zero WMD until after the invasion when that FACT and TRUTH came out as the body count was growing and growing and growing.




post: 27416146 I tell the truth Correll calls me a  troll. 


Correll said:


> Which is what I said. Your reposting it so you can try to spin it into an attack on Bush is you being a troll.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The other guy, errr, NOT, he at least represents a large and powerful political movement, ie anti-American lefties.
> ...



I don't know the limits of your anti-Americanness, but in this context I am referring to your bias against American figures and sources and your bias in favor of non-American figures and sources.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > He also often mentions my race and faith while doing so, implying...something negative about them both.
> ...




Proving my point. YOu are a bigot and a racist.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And Trump is irrelevant to this thread. COMPLETELY.
> ...




1. No, he's not. He is irrelevant.

2. It is disgusting the way you use those deaths for partisan political gain.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. It is disgusting the way you use those deaths for partisan political gain.



Says the one who supported killing them for some speculative hair-brained  scheme tied to American national interest.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. No, he's not. He is irrelevant.



A former President’s opinion on a former president’s disaster of a decision to wage a war of aggression against a Muslim nation that killed half a million people who were no threat to world peace and our security is to Correll irrelevant. 

There is no limit to the ignorance Correll is willing to display in order to never admit being wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Proving my point.



How does this prove any point you ever made about anything??


It was white Christian evangelicals that provided much of the support for W to invade Iraq and kill half a million mostly non-Christians. Black Christian evangelicals did not support it much if not at all. 

There is a certain racial distinction regarding Christian support for killing non/Christians in Iraq. 

In 2015 Trump politically latched onto W’s white evangelical former war supporters who must not mind that he says W lied us into a stupid war that cost us 7 trillion and killed half a million mostly non/Christians for absolutely no good reason. 

WHEN Trump says W lied and was disastrously mistaken he is saying that his current batch of white evangelicals that supported W’s Iraq mess were duped and suckers for BUSH’s lie 

Trump also is saying that black evangelical Christian Americans were  right to oppose the stupid war. Black evangelical Christians were right not to support the needless killing half a million non-white non-Christian human beings. 

So when an old enough white Christian Trump supporter whines and bitches about the truth being told about white evangelical Christians who supported and continue to support the unreasonable and unnecessary and unprepared Blitzkrieg Shock and awe of Iraq on March 19 2003 it is not really an adverse and negative IMPLICATION against all white people. Nor is it negatively implying anything against all Christian Americans. 

It is the same implication that TRUMP  has made which is a positive commentary for bLack and white Americans with many of them being Christians who did not support killing half a million non-white non-Christians in Iraq to disarm Iraq of WMD or any other made up reason such as nation building.  

DJT is a white Christian (I saw him hold a Bible) who has figured out the truth about the disaster of Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe Into Iraq and I commend DJT for that. 

So how and why does Correll complain that I am attacking his race and his religion when I am actually commending  all the white and Christian patriotic Americans who support the truth about Iraq and agree with DJT who agrees with all the patriotic black and white Christians who understand that invading Iraq was a catastrophic huge mistake.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 2. It is disgusting the way you use those deaths for partisan political gain.
> ...



I hoped that the loss of civilian life would be minimal. I strongly supported policies to make the transition as peaceful as possible. I supported spending money like drunken sailors to support the transitional government. 

Your spin on it, that I "supported killing them" is you being an asshole AND you using their deaths for partisan gain.

You are the one who has been talking shit about my being bloodthirsty when you have not once actually ASKED me about my view on the human cost of the war.


You are an asshole. And it is vile the way you are using their deaths for cheap partisan points.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 1. No, he's not. He is irrelevant.
> ...




Trump had nothing to do with policy at that time of the invasion. His personal opinion on a matter he was not involved in, and imo, probably has not carefully studied, is irrelevant. 


I certainly don't care about it. And you only pretend to, because it serves  your purpose. If he had supported the war, you would not give a fuck about what Trump had to say about it.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> How does this prove any point you ever made about anything??




Because you posted a long post, that made no relevant points, but did put the words "white" and "Christian" in the same sentences or paragraphs whining about war and bloodshed and other stupid partisan smears. 


Thus demonstrating your racism and bigotry.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because you posted a long post, that made no relevant points,



You actually don’t get to decide if a point is relevant or not. The length of the post also has nothing to do with relevance as well. THE  FACT that you are dodging the points made about race and religion tells me my post hit you hard and you are unable to recover even with more lies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because you posted a long post, that made no relevant points, but did put the words "white" and "Christian" in the same sentences or paragraphs whining about war and bloodshed and other stupid partisan smears.




Did or did not the same politically motivated white evangelical Christian Republican bloc support GWB and his war of aggression against Iraq in 2003 and then in 2016 support DJT who said support for that war of aggression was a horrible mistake and disaster? 

Why did black evangelicals not support GWB’s dumb war but so many white Christian did?


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Because you posted a long post, that made no relevant points,
> ...




Actually I kind of do. There is just you  and me in this thread, no one else is crazy enough to bother responding to  you. 

So, if you want to discuss your feelings about the war,  you're pretty much stuck with me. 


My point stands. That post was nothing but a big pile of word salad and you putting words like "white" and "Christian" in the mix with negative sounding shit. 


Standard lefty propaganda shit.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Because you posted a long post, that made no relevant points, but did put the words "white" and "Christian" in the same sentences or paragraphs whining about war and bloodshed and other stupid partisan smears.
> ...




Your inability to deal with groups having overlapping numbers, is interesting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your inability to deal with groups having overlapping numbers, is interesting.



What overlapping numbers.  I asked you a simple question:  Why did black evangelicals not support GWB’s dumb war but so many white evangelical Christian did?


Did or did not the same politically motivated white evangelical Christian Republican bloc support GWB and his war of aggression against Iraq in 2003 and then in 2016 support DJT who said support for that war of aggression was a horrible mistake and disaster?


Neither of those questions had anything to do with overlapping numbers. The time frame is 12 years apart when white evangelicals flipped voted for a President who said those who supported GWB,s disaster in  Iraq were duped fools but now I need you to vote for me.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your inability to deal with groups having overlapping numbers, is interesting.
> ...



imo, because blacks vote more by racial bloc and motives and pressure than from their religious affiliation. Also, their churches tend to be politicized and left leaning. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Did or did not the same politically motivated white evangelical Christian Republican bloc support GWB and his war of aggression against Iraq in 2003 and then in 2016 support DJT who said support for that war of aggression was a horrible mistake and disaster?



Not really. Trump's base was more about class and less about religion. That a lot of religious whites are also working class whites, leads to some of your confusion. 






NotfooledbyW said:


> Neither of those questions had anything to do with overlapping numbers. The time frame is 12 years apart when white evangelicals flipped voted for a President who said those who supported GWB,s disaster in  Iraq were duped fools but now I need you to vote for me.



Yes, they do. YOu are just too focused on your own partisan goals to notice.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your inability to deal with groups having overlapping numbers, is interesting.



CONGRATULATIONS on your new dodge concept.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your inability to deal with groups having overlapping numbers, is interesting.
> ...




You have a large pool of voters. In one election they broke in certain ways, in another then broke in different ways. That there was some overlap, 


none of that really means anything. That you think it does, is just the voices in your head, losing the thread of their own argument.


----------



## Mark Richard (Jul 5, 2021)

deannalw America should stay away from war. I think Trump did a good thing by using tariffs instead of bullets.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> imo, because blacks vote more by racial bloc and motives and pressure than from their religious affiliation. Also, their churches tend to be politicized and left leaning.



That is Correll ‘s answer to: Why did black evangelicals not support GWB’s dumb war but so many white evangelical Christian did? 

I wonder if Correll arrives at that opinion about blacks and black churches because he thinks Jesus was a white, right leaning, and would be politically in favor of initiating a war of aggression against a non-white, non-Christian nation for no threat related reason. 

Maybe black Americans actually read Jesus’ message in the Bible and take it to heart when judging the necessity for starting wars. 


Maybe black evangelical Christians have a deeper level of awareness against war that evolved from their closeness to MLK - who said this: 

What about Vietnam? 

****My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years — especially the last three summers. 









						Martin Luther King's Most Controversial Speech: Beyond Vietnam
					

Key passages from King's most controversial speech, plus the original 1967 recording from Riverside Church in New York City.




					www.thirteen.org
				




**** As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. 

**** But they ask — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government. 

For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > imo, because blacks vote more by racial bloc and motives and pressure than from their religious affiliation. Also, their churches tend to be politicized and left leaning.
> ...



No, I think they have a sense of black nationalism or identity. They vote as a racial bloc. Their faith is less of a factor in their voting. 


I wish it were otherwise. The anti-Christian bigotry from lefties like you and the depraved slant so many of you lefties take on social issues, would be great for drawing away minority voters from you people.


This is just my opinion of course. I'm sure that since you disagree with me, you will....hell, you won't really even remember it exists other than as an excuse to attack me personally.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> You have a large pool of voters. In one election they broke in certain ways, in another then broke in different ways.



I see you have no comment on the substance of what they were voting for? 

Anyway thats not overlapping voters.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You have a large pool of voters. In one election they broke in certain ways, in another then broke in different ways.
> ...




Err, yes, it is overlapping groups of voters. The voters broke according to some groups in one election, ie conservatives, religious vs the way they broke the next one, which was more class and social economic status. 

That those groups, are very much intertwined, means overlap.


The issues? I barely remember the issues that drove Bush's campaign. They were rendered mostly moot by 9-11. 

Trump? He ran on very different issues, trade and immigration.


----------



## Mark Richard (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW We cannot blame a nation on the choices of a previous administration. Barack Obama didn't have anything to do with the Vietnam war and Trump had nothing to do with 9/11. Trump wanted people out of war and Barack Obama did the opposite. After generations of a company pass and a new generation comes in, then there needs to be a new perspective. People that bring up the past are stuck in the past. Nobody has a good rational reason for war. Nobody should die ever. But defense is another story. But the first person that started the war is the jerk. The molotov cocktails and the people with rifles on the streets bashing things have no right. You should not have empathy for bad people. Humanity is evolving and it should evolve into togetherness and not war. People say we should learn from the past then we should learn not to have war because it only kills people and destroys things. People that love history like myself wish we can go and visit historical places but instead jerks ruin those historical places and burn them down and topple the statues. There should be no reason for war ever. You should never punch anybody in the face you should always talk things over. People that use their fist instead of their mouth are people that can't fight intellectually. We should help those people


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> No, I think they have a sense of black nationalism or identity. They vote as a racial bloc. Their faith is less of a factor in their voting.



We are not discussing African American voting in general. We are discussing Black Evangelical Christians opposition to invading Iraq vs White evangelical Christians all Gung ho for it. 

Do you think black Christians could have opposed the Iraq war because of ingrained morality they get from their Christian upbringing? 

The Pope and many Catholics of all races opposed invading Iraq I believe based on Christian commitment to peace when possible. 

Why cant you accept black evangelical Christians cannot evaluate the arguments by the government in favor of war and with theur faith being their guiding factor.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Err, yes, it is overlapping groups of voters. The voters broke according to some groups in one election, ie conservatives, religious vs the way they broke the next one, which was more class and social economic status.



That is voting in general, not changing opinion on support or opposition to GWB and his Blitzkrieg Shock and awe. There are no overlapping groups.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Mark Richard said:


> @NotfooledbyW We cannot blame a nation on the choices of a previous administration.



I’m not. What in the hell are you talking  about?

@Corell is lying about what happened during the ramp up to the invasion of Iraq. 

he needs to quit lying. That’s all this is.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Mark Richard said:


> People that bring up the past are stuck in the past.



If we reject learning from the past mistakes we won’t learn what we need to learn. Its good even a dumbass like Trump learned something from the Republican mistake of invading Iraq.


----------



## sparky (Jul 5, 2021)

The Banker said:


> these lying jackasses


oh pUUUlleese.......~S~


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Err, yes, it is overlapping groups of voters. The voters broke according to some groups in one election, ie conservatives, religious vs the way they broke the next one, which was more class and social economic status.
> 
> That those groups, are very much intertwined, means overlap.
> 
> ...



IRAQ was never on the ballot. This thread is about support for  killing half a million Iraqis or opposing it. Bush of course decided to do it and Trump says Bush created  a disaster in Iraq.,

if you can’t address the topic it’s ok. I understand why.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think they have a sense of black nationalism or identity. They vote as a racial bloc. Their faith is less of a factor in their voting.
> ...




Because that is not what I see from blacks. YOur resistance to dealing with my statement is pretty standard for you. You don't agree, so it must not be real.


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Err, yes, it is overlapping groups of voters. The voters broke according to some groups in one election, ie conservatives, religious vs the way they broke the next one, which was more class and social economic status.
> ...




Changing opinion or support of the war? That is a new concept to be introduced in this late date? What are you talking about?


----------



## Correll (Jul 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Err, yes, it is overlapping groups of voters. The voters broke according to some groups in one election, ie conservatives, religious vs the way they broke the next one, which was more class and social economic status.
> ...




I'm aware that that issue was not on the ballot. 


I've been addressing the topic constantly.



What is the point of that post? Who cares about Trump's opinion on the matter?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> I've been addressing the topic constantly.




You are a liar. You avoid addressing the specific issue of white evangelicals strong support for the invasion of Iraq and their later strong support for DJT who told them their support for the invasion was a disaster as compared to black evangelicals opposition to the war whose opposition to the war according to DJT was correct. 

Since Iraq was not on the ballot why are you bringing up that white evangelicals were voting on border and class issues.

I understand that all Republican voters loved racist Trump when he entered the political fray starting with racist birtherism. Then he followed with the great wall of Trumpism. And then he says an American born of Mexican lineage cannot be a judge specifically on a case involving a white Anglo-Saxon like trump.

I know you’ve brushed it all off by saying that you disagreed with DJT on the Iraq invasion being a disaster, but what I’m looking for is an explanation as to why both of you can agree on the facts.

You cannot go there because it’s been very plain that you have no affinity or concern about being honest based on the facts.

So if you liked the great Trump wall and racist attacks on the first black president you can let the fact that DJ T tells you that your support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was wrong.  You personally supported a disaster according to the man you will now put in the White House. It matters. It matters a lot what Trump said about the Iraq invasion. Because it’s one of the few times he spoke the truth about anything based on the facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> Changing opinion or support of the war? That is a new concept to be introduced in this late date? What are you talking about?



I thought you said you have addressed it. Its not changing opinion - its addressing the changed knowable facts and what DJT says about knowable facts.


----------



## surada (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I've been addressing the topic constantly.
> ...



Initially Trump supported the invasion of Iraq .. He was on the Howard Stern Show. He's for the war, but he's evasive and vague like he doesn't know anything about it. He preferred to reference his sexual escapades during the Vietnam War.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> Who cares about Trump's opinion on the matter?



There are huge personal differences between W and DJT but studying the Iraq invasion in historic detail in the context of their claimed religion and their  white evangelical Iraq war supporters reveals a certain continuity between the two FORMER presidents. Both were disasters in different ways. But both disasters were fully endorsed without question by white evangelical Christians - the largest loosely organized voting block in the GOP. its worth study.


----------



## surada (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares about Trump's opinion on the matter?
> ...



I was absolutely flabbergasted when Dubya told Chirac of France that he was fighting Gog and Magog. Up to that point I had no idea his religious training was so shitty. His poor mother. Barbara studied at a fine Episcopal school and was not an evangelical  fundie..


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Err, yes, it is overlapping groups of voters. The voters broke according to some groups in one election, ie conservatives, religious vs the way they broke the next one, which was more class and social economic status.
> ...



No one who supported the Iraq War supported killing any Iraqi civilians. They supported removing Saddam from power because it was in the interest of the United States and the rest of the world given Saddam's continued threat to Persian Gulf Energy Supply. This whole thing was started by Saddam when he illegally invaded and annexed Kuwait in August of 1990. The number of civilian deaths in Iraq, MIGHT be as high as 200,000, and most of them died as a result of insurgent bombings and insurgent attacks. A far smaller number died from U.S. and coalition military action and in nearly every case were accidents. The United States and coalition forces goal was to save lives, while the insurgents goal was to kill as many people as possible. 

In any event, the United States and the coalition won, because the Iraqi government it helped put in to power is still in power. In addition, violence in Iraq has dropped to very low levels. Insurgent activity dropped off considerably. Iraq today has a government that is relatively stable and NOT A THREAT to its neighbors like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Persian Gulf oil supply that is vital to the global economy. Last year, the rate of death in Iraq from violence was half the rate of death from violence in California. Its a good comparison because both California and Iraq have a population of 40 million people. 902 Iraqi civilians died from violence in 2020, while nearly 1,800 people died in California from violence in 2020. 

So far in 2021, the number of people that have died in Chicago from violence, is greater than the number that have died from violence in Iraq. 

While the future is unknown, at this point the United States and its coalition Allies helped create a government that is relatively stable and not a threat to its neighbors or Persian Gulf Energy supply, like SADDAM's regime was a threat to those entities. It helped to create a more peaceful country that is no longer sanctioned and embargoed because of the actions of its leader. 

      The deaths of any innocent civilians are the responsibility of SADDAM, Al Quada,  and ISIS, just as the Axis powers were responsible for the tragic civilian death toll in World War II.


----------



## The Banker (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Brilliant, yup the War in Iraq was a huge success. We should do it again sometime.  The $ trillions wasted, and all the US deaths, AND continued trama/healthcare cost for veterans was definitely worth it.

This right here is why republicans are a total joke, and a total failure.  The War in Iraq was a terrible terrible decision that harmed America substantially more than it helped it.

Only retard Republicans think the war in Iraq was a success.

You dumb fucks are too stupid to recognize that the massive costs for the War in Iraq in no way justify the results.

This is why the GOP is the party of total failure, because of decisions like this.  Waste all these American resources for minimal bennefit to America...

The GOP will always be the party of failure and failed results, this retard just reminded all of us of that fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> No one who supported the Iraq War supported killing any Iraqi civilians.



You certainly did - If one civilian was killed you supported it. If you supported it for the reason you stated you are a self deluded Iraq killer. No invasion - No insurgency and eventually no ISIS. You supported killing every one. Its a fact.


----------



## surada (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Saddam was no threat to the Persian Gulf or any one else. Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions.. That's why all the Arabs  including the Saudis and the Emirates opposed the invasion.. as did oilmen, expats, diplomats and historians.

Israel wanted Saddam gone.. See Clean Break Strategy.

All these neocon amateurs did was uptturn the Dual Containment Policy and make Iran ascendant.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

The Banker said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




 The reality remains that SADDAM's regime was successfully removed and a new Iraqi government was installed that is not a threat to its neighbors. Those are undeniable FACTS! Its not a waste of money or U.S. lives to do something that makes the region, world and United States safer!

         Annual U.S. defense spending from 2001 through 2021 as a percentage of GDP has been lower than it was during the peacetime of the 1980s. 





The Banker said:


> .
> This right here is why republicans are a total joke, and a total failure. The War in Iraq was a terrible terrible decision that harmed America substantially more than it helped it.
> 
> Only retard Republicans think the war in Iraq was a success.
> ...


 
        Just saying that something was a failure and a mistake does not make it so. The United State objective of removing Saddam's regime and replacing it with a government that was more stable and at peace with its neighbors was achieved. 

Oh, and the Republican Party of 2021 is NOT the Republican Party of 2000 or 2004. Joe Biden is closer to the Republican Party of 2004 than today's current Republican Party. 

        I'm more of an independent as my views do not neatly fit in with either of today's major political party's although I voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and tend to support the current Democratic Party more than today's Republicans.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

surada said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



Saddam invaded Iran, Invaded and Annexed Kuwait, invaded and attacked Saudi Arabia, and attacked Israel. SADDAM was the first leader in world history to INVADE and ANNEX an entire country since Adolf Hitler did it. 

 As for sanctions Saddam had wiggled out from under that. With massive natural resource wealth sitting just below the Surface, Saddam had Billion's of dollars worth of resources to finance the rebuilding of the Iraqi military. Saddam was already selling Billions of dollars of oil on the Black Market in the period from 2000 to 2002. 

Most of the Arab's wanted Saddam gone which is why the continued to support and facilitate U.S. military operations in the region. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel are actually much more on the same page in recent years when it comes to Foreign Policy and International Security than they had been in the past. 

*I don't know of any Oilman, expats, diplomats or historians that has written a book lamenting the removal SADDAM's regime from power. If you do know of one, please provide the link. *

The containment policy for SADDAM collapsed long before the 2003 invasion. The Russians, Chinese, and French all committed violations of the Sanctions and Embargo. Containment was never an effective long term strategy in this case which is why removing Saddam became a necessity after he successfully survived the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War and actually started to grow in strength, and less likely to be removed internally. 

Now Iraq and its people are free of SADDAM, free of sanctions, free of the embargo and are able to trade freely with the rest of the world. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are SAFER with SADDAM out of power because the current Iraqi government as a much more modest military and no desire for aggressive military adventures and conquest as SADDAM proved during his time in power.


----------



## The Banker (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Wow that is stupid.

Would you buy a 2 bedroom house in the hood for $1 Mill???

Everything has a price.

This is the exact reason why the GOP is a total failure, you people lack 2nd level thinking.  The money and lives and resources spent in the failed Bush War in Iraq, and the total destabilization of the Mid east that resulted from the war, were in no way worth the end result of removing Saddam.

If you don't have the intelligence to recognize that then this debate can go no further, due to you being retarded.

This is why the GOP has failed America and why all the major problems in our country are the result of failed GOP policy and logic.
The GOP has an inability to think logically about every single issue in our country.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > No one who supported the Iraq War supported killing any Iraqi civilians.
> ...



 Well, I guess I will be the first to inform you that there was opposition to SADDAM and fighting within Iraq BEFORE the United States removed SADDAM from power. Then of course there is SADDAM's invasions and attacks on countries like Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. 

YOU obviously want SADDAM back. I don't and see how its good thing that he is gone. Just as removing Hitler and the other Axis regimes from power was a good thing for the world, so was removing Saddam's regime. 

You want to vote for SADDAM, fine. But I believe that the current Iraqi government is far better than Saddam's regime, and the world is safer and benefits as a result. 

*Just out of curiosity, do you support the removal of Adolf Hitler from power in Germany? Or do you believe like with SADDAM, that was wrong, and that every civilian that died was the fault not of Hitler by the United States and its Allies. *


----------



## surada (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Cheney lied to King Abdullah about Iraq, they weren't massed on the Saudi border and they did NO damage to KSA.

Kuwait was in the wrong in 1991.. and Kuwait had long been a province of Iraq. Saddam sort of got sucker punched into that. KSA forgave the Iraqi OPEC quota debt Saddam incurred when he was fighting our proxy war against Iran.. Kuwait didn't and then kept stealing oil from the oilfield they shared.

US foreign policy in Iraq was the dumbest, most dishonest, keystone cops routine ever... and look what it cost our young soldiers and the taxpayers. Disgusting.

Its something we should be ashamed of.

Israel wanted Saddam taken out and Syria isolated and destabilized.. Read Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

The Banker said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...



The Middle East was not destabilized with Saddam's removal. Your confusing the Arab Spring that started in early 2011 and involved other countries with Iraq. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates did not experience any problems from Saddam's removal, nor were they effected by the Arab Spring in 2011


----------



## surada (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Do you know anything at all about the Middle East or the oil business or the history of Iraq and the Gulf States?  Neither did Dubya.


----------



## surada (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You have never set foot in Iraq or any of the countries you listed.. 

ISIS was born in Camp Brucca Prison in Iraq in 2004. It was touted as the finishing school for Jihadis. The Gulf States saw it coming, but YOU know better. Right?


----------



## Likkmee (Jul 6, 2021)




----------



## The Banker (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The Banker said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


yup the mid east was a beacon of stability in 2005, with terrorists from the entire mid east running wild in Iraq and the surrounding countries.

Trumpers have a hard time accepting reality, basically you people will fabricate any lie or excuse in order to ignore reality.

But hey, the war in Iraq was worth the insaney massive costs and it wazs great policy. We should have a war in Iraq every year, America will only get stronger from more wars in Iraq.

Sometime common sense isn't so common
-Voltaire


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The Middle East was not destabilized with Saddam's removal. Your confusing the Arab Spring that started in early 2011 and involved other countries with Iraq.



Not confused. W’s invasion and the removal of SH left a void and Jihadist terrorist filled it and the Sunni Shia conflict destabilized region big time. 

As far as the Arab Spring it had nothing to Do with US initiating the policy. It was an entirely different story with the removal of SH by blitzkrieg shock and awe in March 2003. If you support that blitzkrieg shock and awe that killed half a million Iraqis because you wanted SH removed and put a democracy in the Middle East then you need to ask yourself why in the hell W started it in March 2003 when the US military and the state department we’re not ready to set up a government in Iraq that would prevent an insurgency and the mess that Iactually happened. You need to take responsibility for the actions that involve killing people when you choose to support wars if aggression in such willy-nilly fashion. Always thought Independents had more brains and morality than Republicans but I guess not all of them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> Just out of curiosity, do you support the removal of Adolf Hitler from power in Germany?



F.U. You are not developed intellectually enough to respond to such garbage. Read my posts in this thread.  

GWB put the United States more in the role the same as Germany with blitzkrieg shock and awe into Iraq in March 2003. Germany was the most powerful country on earth in 1939 when Hitler invaded weak defenseless Poland. Do you see the similarities of the most powerful country on earth in 2003 invading weak defenseless Iraq and Germany invading weak defenseless Poland.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> Most of the Arab's wanted Saddam gone which is why the continued to support and facilitate U.S. military operations in the region.




That is a lie. The region and and his neighbors wanted inspections to continue. He would be no threat if disarmed of WMD. Were you born before 1993? 

I think a ten year old in 2003 would understand what went on?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The reality remains that SADDAM's regime was successfully removed and a new Iraqi government was installed that is not a threat to its neighbors.




Iraq was not a threat when W invaded. No reason to invade and kill all those Iraqis and waste (Trump says) $7 trillion on a disaster. Even a dumb ass like trump could  figure it out, what’s wrong with you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> The anti-Christian bigotry from lefties like you


 I’m not much of a lefty or anti-Christian. I have been praising your Christian Republican Trump for seeking and finding the truth about the lies W told and the lies you swallowed regarding Iraq.,


----------



## Correll (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I've been addressing the topic constantly.
> ...



Alright, that is as much of that nonsense as I can stomach. 

1. Trump is not wacist. Only wace baiting assholes claim he is or was.

2. There is no issue of "white evangelical support" for the war AND their later support for DJT.  Only you seem to think that means anything, and you are not clear what you think it means. 

3. I brought up what the issues were, because you seem confused about that. 

4. The Republican party was supporting racial equality back when you people were still electing klansmen to Congress.


----------



## Correll (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Changing opinion or support of the war? That is a new concept to be introduced in this late date? What are you talking about?
> ...




You're not making much sense here. 


What is your point? State is clearly, and without the fucking partisan filler.


----------



## Correll (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares about Trump's opinion on the matter?
> ...




That is nonsense. Based on nothing but, your utter inability to respect opposing points of view.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

surada said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




I didn't know we had a SADDAM apologist in the forum. None of that BULLSHIT excuses what SADDAM did in August of 1990. SADDAM had no right to invade Kuwait. He also had no right to ANNEX Kuwait. 

The United States has done the right with respect to protecting Persian Gulf Natural resources and ensuring stability. The current Iraqi government is far better than SADDAM's government. Its not a threat to its neighbors and is far more civilized towards the Iraqi people. Kuwait today is safer with respect to Iraq and so is Saudi Arabia. 

The only people that should be ashamed is SADDAM and SADDAM's supporters and defenders.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

surada said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



Far more than you it appears so far.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

surada said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...



Some people link ISIS to certain groups from the past, but ISIS in its 2014 form would never have existed if the United States had not pre-maturely withdrawn from Iraq in 2011. Anyways, ISIS is largely defeated now.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

The Banker said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The Banker said:
> ...



I'm not a Trumper. As I said I voted for Biden in the last election and Hillary Clinton before that. 


There was no significant instability in any country that bordered Iraq in 2005. Not in Syria, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. In fact, all six of those countries remained stable through to today with the exception of Syria, BUT NOT until early 2011 with Syria!

Nobody wants war, but this was a necessity for the future stability and well being of the world. The world is better off with Saddam out of power.


----------



## Correll (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The anti-Christian bigotry from lefties like you
> ...




Your bigotry and hate is clear. Your denial is silly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> Some people link ISIS to certain groups from the past, but ISIS in its 2014 form would never have existed if the United States had not pre-maturely withdrawn from Iraq in 2011. Anyways, ISIS is largely defeated now



you said the 2003 invasion produced a stable Government in Iraq. It Didnt. SHIITES took over and treated Sunnis like shit.   Then ISIS gained the trust of disenfranchised Sunnis starting way before US troops had to leave according to W’s deadline. .Just before W left office at the end of 2008 he negotiated the withdrawal of US troop deadline for every last YS soldier at the end of 2011 to leave.

THATS A  FACT.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The Middle East was not destabilized with Saddam's removal. Your confusing the Arab Spring that started in early 2011 and involved other countries with Iraq.
> ...



The countries that border Iraq; Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Iran and Syria remained stable from 2003 till today with the exception of Syria. It was only in 2011 that Syria first started to experienced significant instability, but not because of anything that happened in Iraq. Iraq in 2011 was calmer than it had been in years. Instability that started in Syria in 2011 did not come from or have anything to do with Iraq. 

Waiting to remove Saddam later on would only increase the cost of the initial invasion as Saddam would have more time to rebuild his military capabilities. 

You also have to realize that there are COST and CONSEQUENCES to not taking action when the United States did. You have to realize that Saddam's actions from 1979 to 2003 led to deaths of 1.7 million people. 

Your mistake is that your assigning blame for certain things to the wrong people and it does not appear you have ever contemplated the cost of not invading and removing Saddam.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of curiosity, do you support the removal of Adolf Hitler from power in Germany?
> ...



That is not the comparison that is being made. Were not comparing Germany's global power position in 1939 to Iraq's global power position in the 1990s or 2003. What we are comparing is the actions that were taken and how each did in their own unique significant way pose a threat to the rest of the world. SADDAM benefited by being in close proximity to much of the worlds important natural resources in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Despite SADDAM's weaker overall position compared to Hitler's, SADDAM was stronger in the sense that he could threaten Persian Gulf Energy supply just by moving his troops across certain borders. Hitler never had a similar situation where he could create an economic crises for the entire world by just moving his soldiers only 100 miles across his border.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the Arab's wanted Saddam gone which is why the continued to support and facilitate U.S. military operations in the region.
> ...



If that were the case, our Arab friends would not have given the United States all the basing facilities to conduct operations that went into Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were not fans of SADDAM and they helped the United States in the first 1991 Gulf War, as well as conducting the sanctions, inspections, and embargo regime from 1991 to 2003. Kuwait fully supported the invasion and was the launching pad for it. No one in the right mind wanted Saddam to continue after what he did to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1990-1991.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The reality remains that SADDAM's regime was successfully removed and a new Iraqi government was installed that is not a threat to its neighbors.
> ...



Well, then why was Iraq in 2003 in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Why was the United States bombing Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003 if Saddam's Iraq was as you say, Not A threat"?

          Any country with the foreign policy history of SADDAM would be considered a major threat. 

You can't pretend that is not the case and White Wash Saddam. Its Saddam's past behavior, and his ability to assemble the resources of his country in the future to commit past actions which made him a threat. 

Saddam was removed and the world is safer for it. You will lose any debate comparing Saddam's regime with the current Iraqi government.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Some people link ISIS to certain groups from the past, but ISIS in its 2014 form would never have existed if the United States had not pre-maturely withdrawn from Iraq in 2011. Anyways, ISIS is largely defeated now
> ...



There were problems in the years after SADDAM because of the Sunni insurgency and the difficulties of nation building. But those problems were overcome to a certain degree which is why in 2021, less people die from violence in Iraq than they do in California or the city of Chicago. Iraq TODAY has a more stable government, a more civilized government than SADDAM's regime. More importantly for the United States, today's Iraqi government does not pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors like Saddam's regime did for decades.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> less people die from violence in Iraq



No Iraqis were dying from violence in March 2003 until W invaded. W’s Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe started the violence. No violence in Iraq. It was more stable before W Invaded.. What is your point?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> Iraq TODAY has a more stable government, a more civilized government than SADDAM's regime. More importantly for the United States, today's Iraqi government does not pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors like Saddam's regime did for decades



Iraq was not a threat if he didn’t have WMD. W agreed SH Could stay in power if SH did not have WMD. Until March 10 2003 said no regime change if SH does not have WMD’s - but W decided to lie about WMD as even dumbass DJT was able to figure out.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> Well, then why was Iraq in 2003 in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Why was the United States bombing Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003 if Saddam's Iraq was as you say, Not A threat"?



Because of 1441. Do you know what that is?

No one bombed Iraq after 1441 was passed in November 2002  until Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe in March 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

Do you think this is funny Correll. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> No Iraqis were dying from violence in March 2003 until W invaded.


----------



## Correll (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you think this is funny Correll.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Somewhat. Your assumption that the oppression of Saddam was not hurting anyone, is highly unlikely.


But, I don't care enough to research it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> Well, then why was Iraq in 2003 in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations.



Because he did not allow inspectors do their work and cooperate until after 1441. 

look it up. UNSC Resolution 1441.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> ut, I don't care enough to research it.




Of course you don’t care. You would have to find a fact that does not exist.

You will denounce the researchers without providing research to challenge them. 

***** 




Key Findings
Death rates were 5.5/1,000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1,000/year for the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate— in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> But, I don't care enough to research it.




so you laughed at half a million dead Iraqis because of the invasion  you supported.


 *****We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate— in Iraq as a consequence of the war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> Any country with the foreign policy history of SADDAM would be considered a major threat.



Why did W offer to leave SH in power between March 6 thru March 10 2003 if SH did not have WMD? 

Iraq’s “foreign policy history” did not convince W or the US Congress that SADDAM was a any kind of a threat.


----------



## Correll (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > ut, I don't care enough to research it.
> ...




Yes. The way you use that for partisan purposes is disgusting. You are a bad person.


----------



## Correll (Jul 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > But, I don't care enough to research it.
> ...




No, I laughed at the way you are a hysteric over events from decades ago, while using the deaths of innocents for partisan gain. 

That you spin it like you did, is just more of the same.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

There are huge personal differences between W and DJT but studying the Iraq invasion in historic detail in the context of their claimed religion and their white evangelical Iraq war support  reveals a certain continuity between the two FORMER presidents. Both were disasters in different ways. But both disasters were fully endorsed without question by white evangelical Christians - the largest loosely organized voting block in the GOP. its worth study.



Correll said:


> That is nonsense.



Why is it nonsense? I’m being called an SH apologist by U2Edge because DJT, black evangelical Christians, and I oppose and condemn the needless killing of half a million innocent Iraqis in order to do nation building in iraq after regime change. 

Are black evangelical Christians and DJT SH apologists? 


Is it possible that white evangelical Christians who disagree with DJT on Iraq, who still support killing half a million Iraqis who were no threat could be wrong. 

Is it possible that white evangelical Christians could ever be a malicious and malignant influence in U.S. politics? Are they always right about everything including  when it’s necessary to kill half a million Iraqis who were no threat.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes. The way you use that for partisan purposes is disgusting. You are a bad person




How is it partisan for me when DJT says W lied about WMD so he could invade IRAQ WHICH caused half a million Iraqis to die.

DJT is right. nothing partisan in saying that


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> No, I laughed at the way you are a hysteric over events from decades ago,



the historic event of killing  half a million Iraqis because W lied about WMD according to DJT is laughable to Correll. 

When DJT confirmed it - all Americans should all be hysterically rejecting what GWB did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> SADDAM had no right to invade Kuwait.



After 1441 W had no MORAL right or purpose to invade Iraq based on WMD lies. W’s war of aggression killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> But those problems were overcome to a certain degree which is why in 2021, less people die from violence in Iraq than they do in California or the city of Chicago.



How did the half a million dead Iraqis overcome being dead that you apparently decided they needed to be to make a better world?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your assumption that the oppression of Saddam was not hurting anyone, is highly unlikely.



Your assertion that the choice to kill Iraqi Muslims in a war of aggression against their country for whatever reason you can now dream up “was a success” for the United States and a few of its allies makes it no assumption that you are a morally depraved warmonger of the first degree.It is a reality.


And that is not a partisan derived reality because it applies to U2Edge as well. And That poster claims to be an independent who voted for Biden and Clinton respectively against DJ T.


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There are huge personal differences between W and DJT but studying the Iraq invasion in historic detail in the context of their claimed religion and their white evangelical Iraq war support  reveals a certain continuity between the two FORMER presidents. Both were disasters in different ways. But both disasters were fully endorsed without question by white evangelical Christians - the largest loosely organized voting block in the GOP. its worth study.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your characterization of normal political support of mainstream politicians, as "without question" is idiotic partisan pap. 

Everything else in your post is based on that idiocy.


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. The way you use that for partisan purposes is disgusting. You are a bad person
> ...




Because you are using their deaths to smear your partisan enemies. 


That was completely clear. Are you pretending to be slow as a defense tactic? Cause, that's dishonest. YOu are not stupid. So, knock that shit off.


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > No, I laughed at the way you are a hysteric over events from decades ago,
> ...




I was clear that I was laughing at you, not the deaths. That bit where you pretend to be stupid to "miss" the point?

That is just a dishonest debating tactic. Knock that shit off.


My point stands. Your hysteria over historical events is laughable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> was clear that I was laughing at you, not the deaths.



You are laughing at me for mentioning the deaths on a thread regarding if and why people support the war that caused them to die. You are laughing at Their deaths because you don’t want to be reminded of them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because you are using their deaths to smear your partisan enemies



That is false. I refer to all the deaths in order to reinforce the fact asserted by a former President of the United States DJ T who has publicly stated that the war that W started was a mistake and a disaster based on lies.

And it is a fact that a huge part of why DJT has affirmed that Iraq was a disaster is because I believe killing half a million Iraqis based on a lie is a sign of moral depravity when anyone Such as yourself continues to refer to it as a success.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No one bombed Iraq after 1441 was passed in November 2002 until Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe in March 2003.



Correll Why do you disagree with the above FACT?


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your assumption that the oppression of Saddam was not hurting anyone, is highly unlikely.
> ...




I never claimed it was a success, that was the other guy. You never asked me my opinion on that. 

You just ranted and raved. 


AND, might I add, even if I do believe it was a success, that would not imply anything about my views on the people who died in the process. 


You don't really understand how thinking or logic works do you?


A person can think something works, and be sad about how hard it was to get there. 


That you need that explained, shows a real problem with your thinking. 


Like, you don't. YOu feel and then start ranting and raving.


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > was clear that I was laughing at you, not the deaths.
> ...




nope. I am laughing at you for being hysterical about historical events. 

NOTHING I have done has shown any unwillingness or hesitation to discuss the human cost of the war. 


I am just not the type of person to use human suffering like that, for cheap partisan points or as appeals to emotion. 


I mean, I could, if I was that type of person, looked up various stories about Saddams many victims and/or the victims of his sons and used the for my own Appeals to emotion...


BUt the very idea of doing that, makes me feel a touch ill. It is defiling the dead, imo. 


No good person would do that, in my culture.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> Saddam would know where he wmds, were. If he was truly cooperating, he would just take them there.



Why do you think you get to decide what cooperation involves? Its spelled out in the 1441 document which dot mention you or any other warmongers being asked what the definition of cooperation is. 

There is nothing in 1441 that says SH must take inspectors to his stockpiles of weapons after declaring he did not have any. 

So why do you argue as if your stupid definition matters? 

SH  was in fact proactively cooperating before W invaded,  causing half a million innocent Iraqis to needlessly die.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact.



Why are you lying about that? The inspectors could do it. … They said it would take a few more months. And there was absolutely no reason for W to end the  process of verifying the unilateral destruction of 1980s WMD to start a war that had no objective or mission to verify the destruction took place.

Do you see how ignorant and unreasonable your method of reasoning is? 

You are supporting the start of a war by the US because you say Saddam was not cooperating in 2003 because he unilaterally destroyed some WMD in 1991. You lie saying the inspectors cannot verify they were actually destroyed. They said it would take a few months to do it. Then W starts the war that kills half a million Iraqi civilians and no one gives a damn about the unilaterally destroyed WMD any more..


Your argument is ludicrous.


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam would know where he wmds, were. If he was truly cooperating, he would just take them there.
> ...




We are discussing my motives for my support, and the motives of others like me. Thus it is my call to decide what meets my standards.


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact.
> ...



IMO, they would have said anything to avoid war. Thus, they were not credible. 


I stand by my point. You cannot verify destruction of something after teh fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> I stand by my point. You cannot verify destruction of something after teh fact.




You are a liar. You have no expertise on the matter. Leave it to the professionals and quit lying to defend W ‘s grossly indefensible war of aggression on Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> We are discussing my motives for my support, and the motives of others like me. Thus it is my call to decide what meets my standards.



You are joking right? You want to create your own murder excusing motive for the disaster that was Iraq? 


We can never let anyone like you who thinks it is ok and normal military policy, to kill half a million innocent people who were no threat decide your own standards to ease your conscience and justify all that death destruction and misery in that part of the world.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> I mean, I could, if I was that type of person, looked up various stories about Saddams many victims and/or the victims of his sons and used the for my own Appeals to emotion...




Actually if you researched and listed all that you still do not get moral justification for W’s disastrous war of aggression against the Muslim people in Iraq. 

There was no violence reported in Iraq after 1441. so there was no killing to stop by killing Iraqis directly or causing the conditions where they start killing each other.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not made a point about lying to start a war. So I offered another example to see if that was a real principle of his,



But, Lincoln did not lie about the reason he as President wanted to start a Civil War. That is because the traitors in the CONFEDERATE STATES wanted war and started it with the attack on Ft Sumpter. 

There is no parallel with Iraq. 

Iraq has never joined the United States - it is a sovereign nation that W lied about so he couid start that invasion. If W did not LIE about WMD there wouid have been UN inspections and no US invasion. 

Nothing close to compare IRAQ to the American Civil War. Its just you being stupid out of desperation to wash away the guilt you have for supporting the REPUBLICAN white Christian evangelical military assault on Iraq that killed half a million Iraqis for no reason.


----------



## Correll (Jul 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I stand by my point. You cannot verify destruction of something after teh fact.
> ...



Did they verify the destruction of the wmds, after the fact?


----------



## Correll (Jul 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > We are discussing my motives for my support, and the motives of others like me. Thus it is my call to decide what meets my standards.
> ...



It was not our military policy to kill all those people. Was that what you were trying to imply with all that Appeal to Emotion shit you've been doing?

Are you seriously that deluded, or are you just lying?

As I stated and you ignored, I hoped for as low a human cost as possible, and for an easy transition to a functioning democracy. 

Your talk of being "Bloodthirst" is just you talking shit.


----------



## Correll (Jul 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, I could, if I was that type of person, looked up various stories about Saddams many victims and/or the victims of his sons and used the for my own Appeals to emotion...
> ...




Your qualifiers trying to exclude various sets of victims of oppression and war is noted and dismissed.

My point stands. 

if I was that type of person, looked up various stories about Saddams many victims and/or the victims of his sons and used the for my own Appeals to emotion...


----------



## Correll (Jul 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Not made a point about lying to start a war. So I offered another example to see if that was a real principle of his,
> ...



Yes, he did.


He misrepresented himself in the election as a moderate, when he was a radical abolitionist. 

He also claimed that the war was about, at first, tariffs, and then about just maintaining the union.

If maintaining the union was his goal, he could have done that by NOT running for office. 


He lied the US into a war, and you make excuses for him, revealing yourself to be a hypocrite.


You don't really care about the Iraq War, or the people that died. You are just using it and them for cheap partisan points.


----------



## surada (Jul 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



That's your problem.. You think opposing the invasion is partisan. It isn't. Some are just more knowledgeable about Iraq and recognize the arrogance of the "Ugly American".


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> bn  He misrepresented himself in the election as a moderate, when he was a radical abolitionist.



Lincoln did not lie. Even If he did it was not to promote and get global backing for  an offensive war of aggression against the south or any other country Like W did against Iraq.

This Lincoln lied thing this has to be one of the top 10 stupidest dances you’ve ever done on a message board. 

It’s ridiculous!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your qualifiers trying to exclude various sets of victims of oppression and war is noted and dismissed.




I am not excluding any of SH victims. I am stating the fact that there are no reports of victims after 1441. It is a fact and you cannot deal with facts in any discussion because you are a liar.

The above mentioned fact is important because it’s part of your attempt to justify your killing of half a million Iraqis you’ve joined the warmonger choir saying you killed them because of the history of SHs killing of past victims. 

Think about that for a minute would you? You were not interested in stopping contemporaneous killing to save lives. You wanted to kill 1/2 a million in order to punish Saddam Hussein for what he had done in the past. It had nothing to do with what he could do in the future. You are a perverted sick Christian For believing what you believe now and lying about what happened back then.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> As I stated and you ignored, I hoped for as low a human cost as possible, and for an easy transition to a functioning democracy.




You had no moral right to decide to a kill few while hoping to keep a low human cost as possible. 

You didn’t have a right to take anyone’s life for transitioning them into a functioning democracy. You don’t have a right to decide how they live. You never did and you never will. 

There was a clear choice available to achieve the exact desired result to eliminate the WMD threat that had zero potential for killing one single Iraqi.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> How were they disarming Iraq, when the WMDs had already been destroyed?



They were disarming Iraq Of any banned weapons that could have been manufactured after the unilateral destruction in 1991 of leftover munitions from the Iran Iraq war in the 1980s.

It’s significant that you must asked such a stupid question. How do you live with supporting the killing of half a million Iraqis when you can’t even understand a simple concept like that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact. THey were destroyed. He failed to document their destruction.
> 
> THe inspectors were on a fool's errand that could NOT be accomplished.




What year did the undocumented destruction take place? Could SH have produced new WMD after that? Could SH not have produced any new WMD after that?


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




No, I don't. But Not's motive here, is to smear his partisan and ideological enemies. 

"Ugly American"? LOL, what is that from? the 50s? Stop living in the past, loser.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bn  He misrepresented himself in the election as a moderate, when he was a radical abolitionist.
> ...




Interesting. That suddenly you care about the motive of a President's lie. So, not all "lying US into wars" are equally bad, it seems. 


Lincoln lied. If his goal was saving teh union, all he had to do, was not run.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your qualifiers trying to exclude various sets of victims of oppression and war is noted and dismissed.
> ...



i stopped reading there. You deny excluding any of saddam's victims and then exclude nearly all of them. 


LOL!!! You are either completely delusional or completely dishonest.


----------



## surada (Jul 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



The ugly American thinks he has some right to forcibly change some other country's government, religion, culture or traditions because they are inherently superior. That is the ugly American. Since you don't seem to have much experience in foreign countries but you mewl about forcing democracy on Iraq, you're it.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > As I stated and you ignored, I hoped for as low a human cost as possible, and for an easy transition to a functioning democracy.
> ...




Your stated positions here are absurd and histrionic. 

Seriously who are you trying to impress? Are you practicing for the future, when suckers might be around that you can fool?


Your point was that I didn't care about civilian casualties, indeed, you have repeatedly accused me of being "bloodthirsty".


You were wrong. I have corrected you. 


Instead of addressing how you just made a stupid ass assumption and then constructed a number of arguments and attacks based on that, you instead just move on to the next absurd attack, ie that I don't have the right to support a war policy. 

This is where we are at. You make stupid ass assumptions about other people, and then attack them on it, and when called on it, instead of responding like a person, you double down on being a partisan spam bot.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > How were they disarming Iraq, when the WMDs had already been destroyed?
> ...



"Could have been manufactured"?

LOL!!! BULLSHIT. 


They were looking for the wmds, or at least going though the motions to try to prevent the outbreak of war.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact. THey were destroyed. He failed to document their destruction.
> ...



Could have? Now you are grasping at straws. 

They were playing  games , trying to avoid a war. 


You do admit that was their motive right? Trying to use process to prevent a war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your point was that I didn't care about civilian casualties,



NO. My point is that you are a liar. I understand  that you are lying in part to justify your continued support for the Republican/White Evangelical Christian invasion of Iraq that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis. So you care, but only so much that you want to be excused , even praised for killing them. You made the lives of the survivors so wonderful.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> "Could have been manufactured"?
> 
> LOL!!! BULLSHIT.




What is bullshit about that? 

They were disarming Iraq Of any banned weapons that could have been manufactured after the unilateral destruction in 1991 of leftover munitions from the Iran Iraq war in the 1980s.

DIdnt you think ‘at the time’ just exactly  as W’s warmongers did that SH had the capability to manufacture and stockpile new lethal WMD and give them to terrorists.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 10, 2021)

That sickening feeling Correll may never feel. 



Correll said:


> Your point was that I didn't care about civilian casualties, indeed, you have repeatedly accused me of being "bloodthirsty".



To this very moment you do not care about any of the hundreds of thousands of casualties or trillions of physical costs caused by the self chosen military offensive and (unprepared for the aftermath) invasion that was launched in order to disarm Iraq of WMD. 

I tell you that FACT because to this day you are not “shocked or angry” after learning that the military operation that caused all those deaths and destruction was not necessary because their post-invasion search for WMD that admittedly came up empty.

You don’t express the shock and anger that the one man in the entire universe has expressed who knows that the reason he put an end to peaceful inspections and started the war was to FIND WMD and separate them from the dictatorship that possessed them because of 9/11/01.


"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," W admits. 









						George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack
					

Former US President George W Bush says he still has a "sickening feeling" because no WMDs were found in Iraq, in memoirs due to appear next week.



					www.google.com
				




 "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."


----------



## Correll (Jul 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your point was that I didn't care about civilian casualties,
> ...




I didn't start this thread. I have no desire to be excused or praised for anything in this thread. 

THe point of your thread is to smear your ideological and partisan enemies.

"Bloodthirst" is a phrase you have used repeatedly.

YOu never asked me, about how I felt about the collateral damage. You just assumed and then built a house of cards on top of that self serving assumption.

Go ahead, ask me.


----------



## Correll (Jul 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > "Could have been manufactured"?
> ...




I don't recall giving it any thought. I probably just figured that he was in a waiting it out mode. It seems unlikely for him to try to manufacture significant weapons while inspectors are searching for shit. 

Regardless, my point stands. The inspectors were not disarming him, they were going though the motions trying to use process to prevent a war. 


You find that believable don't you? You would support that?


----------



## surada (Jul 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You simply don't know anything about Iraq or the oil business or the track record of the inspectors. The invasion of Iraq was based on Bibi's Clean Break Strategy. The Brits began selling the war in 1997 with Operation Mass Appeal.

And, nobody gave a shit about the 50 Christian Churches in Baghdad.

The whole episode is stupid and utterly shameful.


----------



## Correll (Jul 10, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




You say "jews" like it is supposed to have an impact on me. Hint: It doesn't. 

The Brits? Again, I know other countries were involved. You say it, like that alone is enough to make a point. 


It doesn't.


----------



## surada (Jul 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You have some sort of mental block. I didn't say "jews" .. I said Bibi's Clean Break Strategy.

Operation Mass Appeal was British.. MI6 and Sir Dereck Plumbly.


----------



## Correll (Jul 10, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




OMG, so other people didn't like Saddam too. What a shocker. HE was such a sweet guy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> The inspectors were not disarming him, they were going though the motions trying to use process to prevent a war.



Verification that Iraq was disarmed is what disarming means. So the inspectors were disarming Iraq and you are a liar when you say they were not.

The inspectors did not know ‘at the time’ that SH had none of what W and the Warmongers said he had. 

And you are an idiot making that point because when W offered on March 8 the draft resolution to the UNSC that would leave SH in power and avoid war because if what you say were factual Dr Blix would have quit ‘going through the motions’ and advised the UNSC that he has confirmed that Iraq was disarmed on or before March 17. W’s new deadline. 

But he did not do that as was explained because the inspectors had not thoroughly completed site inspections in the south. He said that would take a few more months.


----------



## Correll (Jul 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The inspectors were not disarming him, they were going though the motions trying to use process to prevent a war.
> ...



You are playing silly word games. You can't disarm someone who is already disarmed. Your claims are absurd. 


The inspectors would have said anything to avoid war, perhaps with the limitation of covering their asses.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> The inspectors would have said anything to avoid war,



You are a liar which is why you have no response to the point about W’s draft resolution on March 8 leaving SH in power if verified disarmed by March 17


----------



## Correll (Jul 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The inspectors would have said anything to avoid war,
> ...




When you start spouting off nonsense, I often just stop reading. That is why I cut it, because I didn't get to your later bs. 


If you really want a point responded to, don't bury it in crap, especially crap we have gone over before.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 10, 2021)

Correll   - W’s offer to leave SH in powe


3. Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by Resolution 1441 (2002) 

(Blix could have stopped the invasion here

….. unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under Resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by Resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items;


----------



## Correll (Jul 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll   - W’s offer to leave SH in powe
> 
> 
> 3. Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by Resolution 1441 (2002)
> ...




It is interesting that you consider it a chance for "BLIX" to take action to stop the invasion. 


Are you implying that Blix could have or should have "concluded" something based solely on his desire to stop a war?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> Are you implying that Blix could have or should have "concluded" something based solely on his desire to stop a war?



No. I’m providing you with important facts in order to debunk your bullshit assertion that Blix was going through the motions of disarming Iraq in order to stop the war. 

if BLIX was not being professional and just wanted to stop the war he could’ve taken W up on the offer to the UNSC and declared that Iraq was disarmed  by March 17th. He didn’t do that and that cost half a million Iraqis their lives. Blix is not responsible for W’s disastrous decision to stop the peaceful inspections in order to disarm Iraq by killing Iraqis as if their lives had no bearing on the decision.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is interesting that you consider it a chance for "BLIX" to take action to stop the invasion.



I’m not considering it a chance. It was a Chance based on the draft resolution W was circulating at the time. But you have no use for facts. I don’t know what W would have done if Blix had reported that Iraq was disarmed before March 17 but it sure would have made Blair and Bush go back on their word that was clear and in writing if they went ahead with the invasion after saying they would not on that condition.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> Are you implying



I’m not implying anything. I presented you with a fact and it’s up to you to accept it or explain why a fact is not a fact.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Are you implying that Blix could have or should have "concluded" something based solely on his desire to stop a war?
> ...




If Blix is not responsible, then why did you  state " he did not do that" and "that cost...lives"? If his not taking an action, caused the deaths, that would mean that he IS responsible, at least partially. 

To be clear, that is not what I am saying.  I am pointing out, that that is what YOU are saying. Your words contradict each other. Your arguments are generally a mess like that. Because your logic is a mess. 


You just say so much shit, that doesn't make any sense. It looks like you are, while pretending to engage in debate, actually just spamming propaganda talking points, like a partisan spam bot.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting that you consider it a chance for "BLIX" to take action to stop the invasion.
> ...



You not considering it a chance. But it was a chance? Then you say some shit about me and then Bush. 

Wtf is your point? YOu have talked yourself into a corner. And with the way you cut everything, I can't even help you find where you were trying to go, because the context is gone. 

I assume this was probably to distract from me making a point that you didn't like.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Are you implying
> ...




Sorry, I have no idea what we are talking about now. Since you cut everything. Though I doubt that you really presented me with a "Fact".


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Sorry, I have no idea what we are talking about now. Since you cut everything.



ITs quite simple.   You are a liar. I am not implying anything. I’m presenting FACTS. IF You would like to see the FACTS again click on what I quoted and it takes you to the exact post I’m citing. I understand that you are too stupid to do that but I’m not going to take up space copying your full lies every time that you pull your distraction from the truth stunts.


POSTING FOR IDIOTS 101 








Click on the circle with the arrow inside IDIOT


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> You not considering it a chance. But it was a chance?



What specifically gave BLIX a chance to stop the war? Hint it was something that W put in writing that would leave SH in power as late as March 10, 2003?

Can you tell me what that was since I’ve been trying to teach you what it is. But you cannot bring yourself to actually talk about it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> If Blix is not responsible, then why did you state " he did not do that" and "that cost...lives"? If his not taking an action, caused the deaths, that would mean that he IS responsible, at least partially.



BLIX is not responsible for what the President of the United States did. W is responsible for what W did. And what W did you still support to this day and it caused the deaths of half a million Iraqi innocent. Those are the facts. It proves BLIX was doing his job as a professional and was at least trying to be honest. His job was to disarm Iraq peacefully if SH cooperated.  You are a liar because you said BLIX could not disarm Iraq peacefully. BLIX was not going through any kind of motions as you have said. You are a liar because when you say SH was not cooperating. That is a lie. It is a huge lie.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You not considering it a chance. But it was a chance?
> ...




My point was to point to how incoherent your reasoning and posts are. I don't really give a damn about blix. Blix had a job to do. His job was NOT to prevent war. Your spin on it, sort of, that his action or lack there of was responsible, is wrong.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > If Blix is not responsible, then why did you state " he did not do that" and "that cost...lives"? If his not taking an action, caused the deaths, that would mean that he IS responsible, at least partially.
> ...




Are the Iranians and insurgents responsible for what they did?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Are the Iranians and insurgents responsible for what they did?



NO Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE - No insurgents and No Iranians in Iraq killing anybody. 


It is not a difficult concept. I understand why you can’t get it. 

When W tore down the government, police and army in order to disarm Iraq of WMD he made the USA responsible for keeping civil order and protecting Iraq from invasion by outsiders. 


W’s failure to plan and prepare for the aftermath of regime change when he had no reason to invade in March when inspectors where in Iraq is exactly why W is the only man responsible for every single death that his decision to invade caused. 

And you support it.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Are the Iranians and insurgents responsible for what they did?
> ...




Sorry, that was not clear to me. Are the Iranians and insurgents responsible for their actions?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Sorry, that was not clear to me. Are the Iranians and insurgents responsible for their actions?




What is not clear? if there was no US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 you would be in no need of such a question.

BUSH started the fucking war that caused an insurgency in Iraq that caused the death of half a million Iraqis. Bush is responsible for every death and you are a supporter of that intentional cause of death.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, that was not clear to me. Are the Iranians and insurgents responsible for their actions?
> ...




Why are you afraid to answer the question?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why are you afraid to answer the question?



First of all it’s very stupid question because it is redundant. Ultimately every single human alive and that has ever lived to a mature age that does not have serious mental issues or cognitive problems is responsible their own actions. 

So the answer to your question should go without saying.  But as I understand  that you are just an idiot that doesn’t want to be held responsible for your own actions I guess I have to point that out to you. 

Also I must point out there are systems of moral humanity when there is a conflict of some sort the responsibility for any destruction and loss of life because of that conflict goes to the one that started it. 

There’s a thing called innocent by reason of self-defense. Now it is possible because you are a politically hard right Christian that you do not believe Muslims have the right to defend themselves in the nation of their birth when that nation has been invaded by a predominantly Christian nation basically by land air and sea. And since the Muslim nation basically has no military might or other means of defense specifically from bombing and cruise missile attacks on their cities their means of defense is insurgency. The obvious answer to your stupid question is that the Iraqis and Iranians are responsible for the insurgency that followed the US blitzkrieg shock and awe of March 19, 2003.

What does that do for you and your refusal 18 years after the fact to admit that W unilaterally with the UK of course and a few other bribed nations are the nations that started the invasion and war  during peacetime, and they were not prepared for what to do after the invasion with respect to protecting the people in the nation that they were invading. 

You won’t admit that the lack of military preparation and civic institutional preparation contributed highly to the creation of an insurgency against the occupation.

Contrary to that you support the absolute disaster as it is and continue to do so when even the man who became president the last time has explained to you that it was a disaster and you still voted for him and just nonchalantly say that you don’t agree.

So what does it get you that I answered that question?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your spin on it, sort of, that his action or lack there of was responsible, is wrong.



W is responsible for ‘causing’ half a million Iraqis to die. Not Blix, Not SH. Not Joe Biden, the Ayatollahs in Iran. Just W and the liars and phonies that urged him on.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2021)

This anti-American Christian nationalism bull crap had a big role bringing the disaster of W ‘s Iraq invasion into history: 


Now they are trying to invade America from within under the Trump/Jesus/Confederate Flag. 



A new Christian nationalism movement wants to take over the country for God to rule: report

Sarah K. Burris
July 11, 2021









						A new Christian nationalism movement wants to take over the country for God to rule: report
					

A shocking Washington Post report revealed Sunday that a movement of Christian nationalists is pressing for a movement that puts their church at the heart of a Trumpist theocracy. The story begins with a shocking story of a church pastor displaying a map of Ft. Worth and dividing it into sins...




					www.rawstory.com
				




A shocking Washington Post report revealed Sunday that a movement of Christian nationalists is pressing for a movement that puts their church at the heart of a Trumpist theocracy


The story begins with a shocking story of a church pastor displaying a map of Ft. Worth and diving it into sins like greed, competition, rebellion and lust. The story described a world in which demons are real, magical miracles can actually happen, there are only two genders, no abortion, Bible-based education, and the church rules everyone's life.

"It was an hour and a half into the 11 a.m. service of a church that represents a rapidly growing kind of Christianity in the United States, one whose goal includes bringing under the authority of a biblical God every facet of life from schools to city halls to Washington," said the report.

The pastor speaking out for the new world order was one of many people who traveled to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. He chanted quietly, "Father, we declare America is yours."

If it sounds familiar it's smilar to what many Trump-loving pastors have pushed for years.

Faith leaders like Trump's spiritual adviser Paula White were one of many who organized a nationwide prayer rally ahead of the Jan. 6 attack. They talk about an imminent "heavenly strike" and "a Christian populist uprising." It helped many of those who attacked the Capitol feel like they were taking over the country for God


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't trust any of your statements on who said what when.



You are referring to excepts I took from official Dr. Blix updates to the UNSC. You can check the links for verification if you think it’s fake. 

If you don’t trust any of my statements what are you doing here. You are obviously not interested in honest debate or discussion. 

You must be here to spew your racist rightwinger warmongering hate and not much else.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you afraid to answer the question?
> ...




The Iranians and insurgents were not defending themselves, they disagreed with the idea of an Iraq that was a  multiethnic parliamentary democracy and they choose to wage war against the Iraqi Government and it's American ally.

BUT, you keep putting ALL that loss of life onto Bush and his supporters, as though the Iranians and the insurgents are not responsible for their actions.


Thank you for actually explaining your reasoning on that. Self defense is a legitimate and coherent argument. Thank you for engaging in a serious response.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you afraid to answer the question?
> ...



The fact that Trump, after the fact, disagreed with the invasion is not relevant to anything.


Why do you think that I would care about Trump's opinion on the invasion? 


The world situation in 2016 was very different than it was in 2001. I, and the nation was ready for a less interventionist President. 


Yes, some of the people that supported the invasion in 2001, supported the less interventionist candidate in 2016. 


Why do you find that to be wrong?


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your spin on it, sort of, that his action or lack there of was responsible, is wrong.
> ...



I agree that it was not Blix's responsibility. Which was my point. YOu said it was. Were you just spouting crap talking points that you thought sounded good?


Saddam Hussein certainly gets a good share of credit for all the results of his policies of wars and confrontation with the US.


Joe Biden was in Congress and supported the overall policy of hostility with Iraq, he deserves a nice share.


The leadership of Iran certainly deserves full responsibility for their choice to get involved. 

The Dems who supported Bill Clinton's policy of hostility and regime change, they deserve some of the credit too. Bill could have followed a policy of de-escalation, but he choose not to. His dem voters re-elected him and supported those choices.


You are not consistent in the way you assign blame to people. You are strangely quick to heap all the blame onto people who just happen to be your partisan and ideological enemies.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I don't trust any of your statements on who said what when.
> ...




Blah, blah, blah, wacist. 


When you admit that you cannot defend your argument, without calling someone a wacist,


you are admitting that you cannot defend your argument, at all.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 12, 2021)

Iraq fully deserved what it got. It was held responsible for it's actions and rightly so. It staged a brutal invasion of a peaceful neighboring nation in order to take it for themselves. Simple greed and a desire to conquer. The invasions freed the Iraqi people from a murderous dictator who brutalized his own people as quickly as others and they should thank us for doing so. Some of them paid a price for allowing themselves to be ruled by an evil government.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> The Iranians and insurgents were not defending themselves, ….



Says who? Iraq is a Muslim Nation that was invaded, bombed, and its people were shot at by an army and bombed by its air forces that was sent in during peacetime from a predominantly Christian nation that became an occupying army when the dictatorship fell. 

Now I realize as a cultural non-religious Christian you see no justification for Muslims to resist being invaded by a Christian Army that killed many Iraqis on the way in.



Correll said:


> they disagreed with the idea of an Iraq that was a multiethnic parliamentary democracy and they choose to wage war against the Iraqi Government and it's American ally.



They had the right to disagree with an invading army no matter what that invasion army intended and wanted them to do. 

They did not start it - W did.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The Iranians and insurgents were not defending themselves, ….
> ...




Says me. Choosing to involve yourself in a war next door, is a choice. As much of a choice as it was for America.


BUT, you are not blaming Iran's leaders with the same fervor that you are attacking Bush with. 


Why is that? Is it because the Iranians have never done anything to make them  your enemy?


 I mean they have only waged war on your country, they have not been a problem for your partisan and ideological agenda.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> BUT, you are not blaming Iran's leaders with the same fervor that you are attacking Bush with.



Iran did not invade Iraq. The USA invaded Iraq. Iran responded to defend themselves and Iraq from unnecessary US aggression on their border. That is a fact. Iran was listed as the one of the three Axis if Evil nations by the same ban who ordered the invasion of Iraq for no reason whatsoever except that it could.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Choosing to involve yourself in a war next door, is a choice. As much of a choice as it was for America.



Of course it was a choice for Iranians and Iraqis to fight against the US invasion and the unprepared occupation of Iraq that they saw as a Christian war of aggression against Muslims and also as an attempt to seize land for military bases and gain control of Iraq’s major resource -oil .

As you say it was a war of choice for America  So that means America was not responding to aggression or violence or any threat of any kind when its President quit the peaceful process of disarming Iraq and chose to get the cl invasion started on March 19 2003.

So which side had the moral weight on the choice they made? The side that chose to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq or the side that chose to fight those that attacked and invaded and occupied Iraq.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > BUT, you are not blaming Iran's leaders with the same fervor that you are attacking Bush with.
> ...




So, Iran gets a pass for it's war making, while America is slammed. 

Thus, we see all your pretense of being so concerned about the human cost of the war, was just that, pretense.


When the war is one you can't use to smear your enemies, you don't care about those who suffer or die.


You have been USING the dead, desecrating them, verbally, so that you can smear and attack your enemies, not because you have any real concern for them, or any real anti-war principles.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Choosing to involve yourself in a war next door, is a choice. As much of a choice as it was for America.
> ...




Both bear full responsibility for their actions. Yes, America choose to wage war on Iraq.


But Iran choose to wage war on Iraq, and the US. 


You are the one that wants to put the responsibility for one's actions, onto someone else, not me. 


You are quick to cite their "perceptions" to justify their reasons. Because you are sympathetic to them. 


Your treatment of America is far harsher. Because you are NOT sympathetic to them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> I mean they have only waged war on your country, they have not been a problem for your partisan and ideological agenda.



There was only one leader of a nation on March 19 2003 who decided to start a war by bombing and invading a nation that at the time was being peacefully disarmed by the UNSC at the time for several months. Keyword = PEACEFUL.

No nation was waging war against the United States except The Taliban In Afghanistan and they were driven out of power with partial Iran’s help. 


But this reflects how Iran saw the US invasion of its western neighbor.

*** In March 2003, the United States did for Iran what Iran itself tried but failed to achieve after eight long years of bloody war with Iraq, namely to overthrow Saddam Husayn. 

*** https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/event/MohsenMilaniFinal.pdf

*** As a result of this momentous event, the strategic cards in the Persian Gulf were shuffled, creating new opportunities as well as existential threats for Iran. On the one hand, Iraq, Iran’s archenemy, was defeated and its historically oppressed Shi’i majority—a potential ally for Iran—was liberated and energized, and Iran solidified its position as the most powerful indigenous force in the region. On the other hand, the United States virtually encircled Iran with its more than 150,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, elevating Iran’s threat perception to an


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, Iran gets a pass for it's war making, while America is slammed.



Iran was responding to US aggression in Iraq on their eastern border. . Iran was not waging war against the UNITED States in March 2003. There is a difference between being an enemy and being a nation that invades another nation during peacetime in a full blown massive military air and ground assault.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> But Iran choose to wage war on Iraq,



Iran did not wage war on Iraq you moron. They are Shiite. IRAQ is majority Shiite. The US did what Iran couldn’t do when the US backed SH somewhat when he waged war against IRAN.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because you are sympathetic to them.





I just can’t help yourself can you – Christian culture warmonger?


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I mean they have only waged war on your country, they have not been a problem for your partisan and ideological agenda.
> ...




You should drop the emotional bullshit. You only get upset about people choosing to wage war, when it is your enemies that choose to do so.

Anyone else, and you are very understanding of their reasons and seem fine with their choices. 


Thus, all your talk about the human cost and all your drama, is shown to be just bullshit, to justify your attacks on your enemies.


It is telling that you reserve more ire for your fellow Americans than you do for people and nations that actually kill your fellow Americans.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > So, Iran gets a pass for it's war making, while America is slammed.
> ...




Sure, there's a difference. Not to the civilian dead there isn't. You spent a lot of time pretending to be upset over the human cost of war. 


Now we see that was all bullshit. 


You are just pretending to be upset over the civilian dead, when it gives you ammo to attack your true enemies with.



Which to be clear, are NOT the people who wages war on your nation, killing  your fellow Americans. 


No, your true enemy are the Republicans, especially the white and/or Christian ones.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > But Iran choose to wage war on Iraq,
> ...



Sure they did. THey sent arms and soldiers into Iraq to wage war on the Iraqi Government and their American allies.

Your making excuses for them, reveals that ALL YOUR DRAMA over how bad war is, was all bullshit.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Because you are sympathetic to them.
> ...




Your bias is clear in the way you accept their justifications for war, and/or make excuses for their actions while doing the opposite with your fellow Americans.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your bias is clear in the way you accept their justifications for war,



You are confused. I’m not making justification for war from any side. I’m reminding you that with regard to the invasion of Iraq that started on March 19 2003 there was one person in the entire world that started it when there was peace in Iraq and no aggression from Iraq. What people and nations did in response to the invasion was a response to the unnecessary choice that W made. You don’t get to support in this case the US president’s choice to kill people in order to disarm Iraq when there was a functional choice to disarm Iraq based on SH’s obvious cooperation with the 1441 inspectors that were open and ongoing for several peaceful months and then you expect the Iraqis and neighboring nations to submit and prostrate themselves to a Foreign invader and occupation without a fight. 

Human nature is to fight or run when attacked. Its what happens when the powerful nations invade weaker ones.


Do you Correll support killing innocent people by the US military in an invasion into a foreign nation when there is no threat to peace and stability in the region and the world when the invasion is commenced?


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Your bias is clear in the way you accept their justifications for war,
> ...



And now  you are shifting responsibility for their actions from them, to "W".

You jump all over the place, you say all kinds of contradictory shit, but the one constant is, you find excuses to blame US and excuse THEM. 


And it shit cans any pretense  you have of being anti-war. You are only anti-American.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> nd now you are shifting responsibility for their actions from them, to "W".



I’m not shifting responsibility. Who chose to invade Iraq in the midst of ongoing peaceful inspections. That is who is responsible for all the violence mayhem disaster and death that followed? The one that started the chain of events is the one that is responsible. 

W does not get a mulligan for causing half a million Iraqis to die for no reason.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > nd now you are shifting responsibility for their actions from them, to "W".
> ...




Hilarious. You deny that you are shifting responsibility to "W", and then you immediately restate your position that the one responsible for all the "death and violence" is "W".


And all your talk about the deaths? You can drop your pretense. You've clearly demonstrated that you only care about people dying in war, when you can use it to smear the people you hate, ie Republicans, especially when they are white and/or Christian.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> You deny that you are shifting responsibility to "W", and then you immediately restate your position that the one responsible for all the "death and violence" is "W".



You are an idiot. I am not SHIFTING responsibly to W. W’s bad decision is responsible for causing every decision  that followed. W always was and will be responsible. There is no shifting responsibility to him..He made a choice to start killing people to disarm Iraq. No one else chose to do it. He made a lot of mistakes. He is responsible for those mistakes.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You deny that you are shifting responsibility to "W", and then you immediately restate your position that the one responsible for all the "death and violence" is "W".
> ...




Got it. W is responsible for his actions and choices. He is also responsible for other people's actions and choices. Because, of reasons. 


Those people, the Iranians and the insurgents, who choose to wage war, even though they knew that innocent civilians and children would be caught in the crossfire, 


they are NOT responsible for the people they killed. W is. 


BUT, you are not shifting responsibility. 


Dude. You are being ridiculous. I have stone cold busted you as just talking shit. Your anti-Americanism is now clear. Your lack of real concern for the civilian deaths is now revealed. 


You should be thinking how to avoid such humiliations in the future. If you ask me, I could help you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> You've clearly demonstrated that you only care about people dying in war, when you can use it to smear the people you hate, ie Republicans, especially when they are white and/or Christian.



You are a lying white Christian Republican when you say I demonstrated that.,

HEY HEY LBJ HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY? YES I said it. You are a liar.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The Iranians and insurgents were not defending themselves, ….
> ...


Iraq invaded Kuwait. Killed pillaged and raped. Then refused to give back what it stole. It fully deserved the retribution it received.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You've clearly demonstrated that you only care about people dying in war, when you can use it to smear the people you hate, ie Republicans, especially when they are white and/or Christian.
> ...



Before your time. Back then, dems actually wanted to fight communism. 

Today? You slam W for all the civilian deaths in the Iraq War, but you are fine with the Iranians, and the insurgents who made choices that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. 

That shows that your pretense of caring, was bullshit. You just used those poor dead civilians, for political ammo.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



He  only cares, if he can use the dead to smear his enemies.


Hint: His enemies aren't foreigners.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Got it. W is responsible for his actions and choices. He is also responsible for other people's actions and choices. Because, of reasons.



You are a liar..I said W is responsible for the entire fucking disaster because others reacted to it. 

You cant start a war and then walk away blaming the other side for fighting back. 

You should not support invasions of other countries to destroy a peaceful situation if you don’t want to be responsible for how fucked it up gets after tearing it apart.


----------



## surada (Jul 12, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



The Saudis didn't think so. They forgave the OPEC quota.


----------



## Correll (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Got it. W is responsible for his actions and choices. He is also responsible for other people's actions and choices. Because, of reasons.
> ...




Iran wasn't the "other side". They were a neighboring country. Many of the insurgents were not the "other side", they were outsiders who decided to come to Iraq to wage war.


And you just give them a pass for their choice and put the responsibility for their actions on W, and his supporters.


That is indefensible. And immoral. 


That you lie about what I am doing, ie trying to avoid responsibility or some such shit, is just another layer of lying from you.


----------



## surada (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Iran was the other side.. You should probably read up on the Dual Containment Policy.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I mean they have only waged war on your country, they have not been a problem for your partisan and ideological agenda.
> ...


There was nothing "peaceful" about Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and it's violation of the cease fire agreement continued that war. If Iraq didn't want war it shouldn't have started and then continued one. It may have been a mistake to allow Iraq to continue as a nation. Maybe we should have made it a part of Kuwait.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> There was nothing "peaceful" about Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait



What year was that? I never said Iraq was peaceful that year. Iraq was peaceful and was cooperating with 200 UN inspectors who were disarming Iraq peacefully when W broke the peace and started the violence in Iraq that caused half a million Iraqis to die. 

Those are facts. Indisputable facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> If Iraq didn't want war it shouldn't have started and then continued one.



You are a liar. Iraq did not continue the war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Maybe we should have made it a part of Kuwait.



Maybe you should not support killing innocent people in order to rearrange the world to your liking. HW formed a coalition got a UN mandate, drove Iraq’s army out of Kuwait and pulled out when the mission was accomplished. I supported that at the time and still do.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Iran wasn't the "other side".



They were 1/3 of the Axis of EVIL. That is the other side. They had no part in the 9/11 attacks and supported the Shiite insurgency against the invading Army in Iraq after W sent them there. 

IF W did not send US troops into Iraq, Iran would not have supported an insurgency against them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Many of the insurgents were not the "other side", they were outsiders who decided to come to Iraq to wage war.



And what made outsiders including al-Qaeda decide to come into Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> And you just give them a pass for their choice



You are a liar. They get no pass from me. I’m only saying that W is responsible for outsider insurgents and telling them to bring the attacks against American Troops on. 


** BUSH: Let me finish. There are some who feel like — that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ’em on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.


Yeah! Right you did!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> And you just give them a pass for their choice and put the responsibility for their actions on W, and his supporters.
> 
> 
> That is indefensible. And immoral.




Why are W and his warmonger supporters like you not responsible for creating the conditions that incubated an insurgency in Iraq following the US invasion to disarm Iraq of WMD. 


“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.





__





						President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
					

<a href="/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.v.smil"></a>Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight, and to discuss with the American people the serious matters facing our country and the world.



					georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov
				




 Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> you have been USING the dead, desecrating them, verbally,



That’s an interesting mutilated rationality that the people that you supported killing are being verbally desecrated when I object to your rationale that killing them was necessary so they can ‘live’ in a democratic nation that you will build for them. 

You say I’m desecrating the half a million Iraqis that that ended up dead due to W’s decision to disarm Iraq of WMD by a war of aggression and incompetent occupation of Iraq that you supported and continue to support the invasion that caused their unnecessary deaths. I’m speaking for them because they can’t because you supported the world leader when he decided that some Iraqis needed to become collateral damage in a war to disarm Iraq violently.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > If Iraq didn't want war it shouldn't have started and then continued one.
> ...


You are the liar. Iraq failed to abide by the cease fire agreement although given chance after chance to do so over a ten year period and then ignored a UN ultimatum. So the war continued. A cease fire is a provisional pause in hostilities; not a peace treaty. History is quite clear. In the end Saddam was the one responsible for the Iraqi deaths like so many others. Iraq started the war and continued it. It has no one to blame but itself.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> then ignored a UN ultimatum.



You are a liar. IRAQ was not ‘at war’ with any nation up to and after the date 1441 was passed in November 2002. 

Bush said he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully up until March 10, 2003. POWELL said War was not inevitable at the same time when he said Iraq was cooperating.

*** MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  “And if it does, {cooperate) war is not inevitable?” 





						Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos
					






					2001-2009.state.gov
				



*** SECRETARY POWELL:  We've never said that war is inevitable.  The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution. 

If “WAR” was not inevitable in December 2002 with 200 UN inspectors on the ground inside Iraq with Iraq cooperating according to Secretary Powell, how were we ‘at war’ with Iraq in December 2002? 

You are a liar. Iraq did not ignore 1441. Iraq was in FACT cooperating with 200 UN inspectors 2.5 months prior to the invasion  AND war was not inevitable according to Sec of State Colin Powell: 

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





						Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos
					






					2001-2009.state.gov
				



*** SECRETARY POWELL:  “They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues.”

(1) Is the ceasefire agreement with the United States or with the United Nations? 

(2) Are you saying Iraq was at war with the United Nations ever since 1991? 

(3) Where are you getting such language? Does QAnon have an international law branch now too?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> A cease fire is a provisional pause in hostilities; not a peace treaty.



You are a liar..The Ceasefire went into effect on April 6 1991 when Iraq accepted the terms.

*** {Resolution 687 was passed by 12 votes to one against (Cuba) with two abstentions from Ecuador and Yemen after a very extended meeting. Iraq accepted the provisions of the resolution on 6 April 1991}

Iraq was found several times by the Council to be in Material Breach of its disarmament obligations and under your sanctions, but the ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait was not broken. There was no continuation of war after April 6 1991. You lied about the continuation of war.

FACT: Iraq was peacefully cooperating with almost on 200 UN inspectors when W decided to replace the peaceful inspectors with military. There was no continuation of war.  Iraq was in Material Breach of its disarmament obligations but wax given a Final Opportunity to Comply Under 1441 and be disarmed peacefully. 


FACT: W gives Iraq a final opportunity to cooperate and be disarmed.

{President George W. Bush
The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DC
November 8, 2002

Text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441
Good morning. With the resolution just passed, the United Nations Security Council has met important responsibilities, upheld its principles and given clear and fair notice that Saddam Hussein must fully disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction}


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Funny, I thought we were talking about the war. We didn't invade Iran. But they CHOOSE to get involved and wage war. 


But strangely, you don't respond to them choosing an optional war, the way you did with President Bush doing so.


Almost like you only care about it, when  you can use it to smear your partisan and ideological enemies.


EXACTLY like that, in fact.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Iran wasn't the "other side".
> ...




They could have stood aside and waited out the policy of containment. 


Instead they choose to wage war, when it was "not the last resort", which, when President Bush did it, caused you to go into drama queen mode, citing "omg the children" and now suddenly, it's completely understandable. 


Your hypocrisy, is like a mountain and an ocean combined. Higher than a man can climb, yet deeper than he can swim, and vast as the night. 


See, I can be poetic to. I just don't use dead children to do so.


----------



## surada (Jul 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Oh please. Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions before Bush's invasion.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Many of the insurgents were not the "other side", they were outsiders who decided to come to Iraq to wage war.
> ...



The presence of people they hate, Christians. 

Why? Are you saying that is a good reason, a JUST WAR reason? Enough of a reason to "kill innocent civilians, including children"? 


Cause, when President Bush choose an optional war, you went into drama queen mode.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And you just give them a pass for their choice
> ...




If you were sympathetic to him and wanted to put a positive, instead of negative spin on his words, 

you would realize that he was obviously trying to DISCOURAGE them from coming with a show of confidence.


But you are biased against him, the President of the United States, a "white, Christian, nationalist" as you so often put it, 


while the outsider insurgents, are "brown, Muslim, and NOT nationalists", so they get a positive bias from you and you

 don't hold them as "bloodthirsty" even though they did what you pretend upsets you, ie, choose an optional war, with the

 attending collateral damage.

That is hypocrisy from you, and probably racism and anti-Christian bigotry. And a weird bigotry against nationalists, for some ideological reason.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > And you just give them a pass for their choice and put the responsibility for their actions on W, and his supporters.
> ...




The PRIMARY RESPONSIBLE for a person's actions, in on that person.  That is the base meaning of responsibility.


If, AFTER you condemned the outsider insurgents, with the same fervor that you condemned President Bush, you wanted to ALSO discuss "the conditions" that would be legitimate, but your easy acceptance of their perspective, and the shifting of primary responsibility to someone else for their actions and choices, makes that a Lie. You would not be discussing that issue, but actually supporting the shifting of responsibility.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > you have been USING the dead, desecrating them, verbally,
> ...




 Nope. I'm fine with discussing the cost of the war. What I have objected to, is your use of the dead as APPEALS TO EMOTION.


That you continue to lie about that, is just another layer of proof, in the mountain of proof, that you are a dishonest debater, and that your arguments do not hold together and that your goal is not to prevent future wars, but just to smear  your enemies.


You also continue to spin and mischaracterize my words and positions on the civilian causalities. That is a dick move. 


Why are you being a dick?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > then ignored a UN ultimatum.
> ...


Educate yourself:








						Persian Gulf War | Summary, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, Syndrome, Map, & Facts
					

Persian Gulf War, also called Gulf War,  (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait with the apparent aim of acquiring that nation’s large oil reserves...



					www.britannica.com
				




*Persian Gulf War*_, also called *Gulf War*, (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
On August 3 the United Nations Security Council called for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, and on August 6 the council imposed a worldwide ban on trade with Iraq.
Iraq’s invasion and the potential threat it then posed to Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer and exporter, prompted the United States and its western European NATO allies to rush troops to Saudi Arabia to deter a possible attack. Egypt and several other Arab nations joined the anti-Iraq coalition and contributed forces to the military buildup, known as Operation Desert Shield. Iraq meanwhile built up its occupying army in Kuwait to about 300,000 troops.
On November 29 the UN Security Council authorized the use of force against Iraq if it did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. By January 1991 the allied coalition against Iraq had reached a strength of 700,000 troops, including 540,000 U.S. personnel and smaller numbers of British, French, Egyptians, Saudis, Syrians, and several other national contingents. Saddam steadfastly refused to withdraw Iraqi forces from Kuwait, however, which he maintained would remain a province of Iraq.
The allied coalition’s military offensive against Iraq began on January 16–17, 1991,...
By the time that U.S. Pres. George H.W. Bush declared a cease-fire for February 28, Iraqi resistance had completely collapsed.
The terms of the peace were, inter alia, that Iraq recognize Kuwait’s sovereignty and that it divest itself of all weapons of mass destruction (i.e., nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) and all missiles with ranges exceeding 90 miles (150 km). Pending complete compliance, economic sanctions would continue.
In the aftermath of Iraq’s defeat, Kurds in the north of the country and Shīʿites in the south rose in a rebellion that was suppressed by Saddam with great brutality. These actions prompted the allies to prohibit Iraqi aircraft from operating in designated “no-fly” zones over these areas. As the other allies gradually left the coalition, U.S. and British aircraft continued to patrol Iraqi skies, and UN inspectors sought to guarantee that all illicit weapons were destroyed. Iraq’s failure to cooperate with inspectors led in 1998 to a brief resumption of hostilities (Operation Desert Fox). Iraq thereafter refused to readmit inspectors into the country, and regular exchanges of fire between Iraqi forces and U.S. and British aircraft over the no-fly zones continued into the 21st century. In 2002 the United States sponsored a new UN resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors, who then reentered Iraq in November.
 On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq’s border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres. George W. Bush—seeking no further UN endorsement—issued an ultimatum demanding that Saddam step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war;...
 When Saddam refused to leave, U.S. and allied forces launched an attack on Iraq on March 20 and thus began what became known as the Iraq War.
---------------------------_
The cease fire obviously did not end the war. Acts of war continued at intervals for years and was only ended by a second invasion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> Nope. I'm fine with discussing the cost of the war. What I have objected to, is your use of the dead as APPEALS TO EMOTION.



I appeal to FACTS and having The magnificence of human reason applied to them. I can understand since you are a tribal right wing cultural Christian that faces and reason and The documented historical record are not that important to you. 

However when the facts and applied thinking and reason upset you to the point of whining and complaining and bitching about everything and In a knee jerk fashion I don’t see how that is my problem. It seems to be yours. 

So get a grip on yourself and try thinking and examining facts for a change.


----------



## surada (Jul 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Trump claimed that he was a Nationalist, but to be fair he probably doesn't know that that means. He's dumb as a GD stump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The cease fire obviously did not end the war. Acts of war continued at intervals for years and was only ended by a second invasion.



Are you stupid like Correll.  Go back and review what I wrote. You can read cant you? My point is clear. IRAQ no other nation was at war after 1441 went into effect. Iraq was domestically peaceful and was committing no acts of military aggression from at least November 2002 up to the minute that W started the war of aggression that killed half a million Iraqis for no reason. Those are facts abd nothing in your wall of words disputes those facts. 

So you continue to be a liar.

Try honestly responding to my specific points. That might get you out of the liars box.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> you would realize that he was obviously trying to DISCOURAGE them from coming with a show of confidence.



I understand you must cheapen language to continue to sit high and mighty on your cultural Christian throne but come on get your nose out of W’s ass long enough to find out that language has meanings that you shouldn’t toss around and change to suit whatever pathetic argument you just dreamed up. 

I take W’s ‘bring ‘em on comment’ to be a taunt - a stupid remark meant to anger or provoke an Iraqi even more who may have lost someone or something because of the invasion and would be looking around to hook up with other pissed off Muslim males thinking they need to take W up on his offer. And they did. 

But the real point here is that W was not prepared to counter the catastrophe that would come when those opposed to the occupation decided to bring the insurgency on. 

You support that failure crap and still kiss W’s ass. Must be tribal instinct to keep your lips wet for your leaders.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> In 2002 the United States sponsored a new UN resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors, who then reentered Iraq in November.



Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.

Can you find any skirmishes at all following the 1991 cease fire that had something to do with Iraq re-invading or attacking Kuwait? 

It appears the ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait held. So you really are a liar -a dumb liar but a liar just the same.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. I'm fine with discussing the cost of the war. What I have objected to, is your use of the dead as APPEALS TO EMOTION.
> ...



No, you don't. You wallow in focusing on the innocent children or some such shit, when it serves your partisan purpose, but gloss over them, when it does not, like when discussing the choices and actions of the outside insurgents. So, that claim of yours is just a lie.



NotfooledbyW said:


> I can understand since you are a tribal right wing cultural Christian that faces and reason and The documented historical record are not that important to you.



Lets see, you got several types of bigotry there, and unsupported accusations.



NotfooledbyW said:


> However when the facts and applied thinking and reason upset you to the point of whining and complaining and bitching about everything and In a knee jerk fashion I don’t see how that is my problem. It seems to be yours.
> 
> So get a grip on yourself and try thinking and examining facts for a change.



I just stated that I'm happy to discuss the issue, but I have a problem when you milk it for emotional appeal, and you do so in a hypocritical double standard manner.


So, seriously, wtf are you talking about? 


We CAN'T have a serious discussion, because you pepper all your posts with various types of bullshit.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




Not is regularly pretending to be too retarded to understand simple concepts. YOu actually ARE too retarded to understands simple concepts. Go away loser.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > The cease fire obviously did not end the war. Acts of war continued at intervals for years and was only ended by a second invasion.
> ...




He obviously was making the point that he disagreed with your opinion on that. He also supported it, with a supporting argument.

YOur flat unsupported assertion, comes across as retarded by comparison. 


With all due respect.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > The cease fire obviously did not end the war. Acts of war continued at intervals for years and was only ended by a second invasion.
> ...



*Try honestly responding to my specific points. That might get you out of the liars box.*
Already took the trouble to do so above but apparently your ability to read and understand simple English really sucks.

*IRAQ no other nation was at war after 1441 went into effect.*
Untrue. A state of war existed between the U.S. and Iraq from before the first U.S. invasion until the Iraqi surrender at the end of the second invasion. From my link:
_In the aftermath of Iraq’s defeat, Kurds in the north of the country and Shīʿites in the south rose in a rebellion that was suppressed by Saddam with great brutality. These actions prompted the allies to prohibit Iraqi aircraft from operating in designated “no-fly” zones over these areas. As the other allies gradually left the coalition, U.S. and British aircraft continued to patrol Iraqi skies, and UN inspectors sought to guarantee that all illicit weapons were destroyed. Iraq’s failure to cooperate with inspectors led in 1998 to a brief resumption of hostilities (Operation Desert Fox). Iraq thereafter refused to readmit inspectors into the country, *and regular exchanges of fire between Iraqi forces and U.S. and British aircraft over the no-fly zones continued into the 21st century.* _(Continuing acts of war).

*Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.*
_On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq’s border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres. George W. Bush—seeking no further UN endorsement—issued an ultimatum demanding that Saddam step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war;...
When Saddam refused to leave, U.S. and allied forces launched an attack on Iraq on March 20 and thus began what became known as the Iraq War. _

*It appears the ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait held. So you really are a liar -a dumb liar but a liar just the same.*
Cute. But entirely besides the point. The cease fire being discussed was the one between Iraq and the allied coalition.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> *Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.*
> _On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq’s border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres._



March 17, 2003

That’s the announcement date regarding the March 19 START date of the war of aggression to disarm Iraq that W launched to put an end to the inspections that were successfully disarming Iraq peacefully.  
You are a liar because you cannot deny the fact that the inspections were peaceful and Iraq was not at war with anybody. If Iraq were at war between November 2002 and March 17 2003 that has got to be one of the most peaceful wars in the history of mankind.



March 19, 2003

That’s the start date of the war of aggression to disarm Iraq that W launched  that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis.

There were no skirmishes in Iraq during the four months after 1441 was passed and prior to the US invasion. So you cannot refute what I said.

And if the US and Iraq were already at war prior to March 19 2003 why did W Get an AUTHORIZATION from Congress in October 2002 to use military force against IRAQ.

Have you ever heard of an ongoing war where the president is not allowed to use military force in it? I haven’t. I’m pretty sure you’re a dumb ass if you think we were at war all that time.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > you would realize that he was obviously trying to DISCOURAGE them from coming with a show of confidence.
> ...



I made a serious point. All you did to support  your dismissal, was cite the fact that I am a "cultural Christian" as though that is a reason for my words to be considered less than yours.


And of course, you reasserted your assumption. 

Oh, and some personal ridicule such as "kiss W's ass".

All you have is assumptions and logical fallacies. 


You are being an asshole.  You are USING being an asshole, as a rhetorical device.


THat is not much to build a debating defense on.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



Well done.


----------



## Correll (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > *Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.*
> ...



Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.




NotfooledbyW said:


> to disarm Iraq that W launched to put an end to the inspections that were* successfully disarming Iraq peacefully*.



Logical fallacy of Beginning the question.




NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar because you cannot deny the fact



Absolute nonsense. Of course people can disagree with you. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> that the inspections were peaceful



Absolute nonsense. Meaningless partisan pap. Filler to sound good, while saying nothing. The type of dishonest shit someone uses when they can't make a real point.




NotfooledbyW said:


> and Iraq was not at war with anybody.



Begging the question. 




NotfooledbyW said:


> If Iraq were at war between November 2002 and March 17 2003 that has got to be one of the most peaceful wars in the history of mankind.



Logical fallacy of Proof  by Ridicule. Lots of wars included periods of not active fighting. You have to know this. No one is as retarded as  you are pretending to be.




NotfooledbyW said:


> March 19, 2003
> 
> That’s the start date of the war of aggression



Begging the question.



NotfooledbyW said:


> to disarm Iraq



Begging the question. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> that W launched  that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis.



Begging the question. Appeal to emotion. Partisan nonsense. Absolute asshole-ness.




NotfooledbyW said:


> There were no skirmishes in Iraq during the four months after 1441 was passed and prior to the US invasion. So you cannot refute what I said.



Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. And complete nonsense. Of course people can disagree with you.




NotfooledbyW said:


> And if the US and Iraq were already at war prior to March 19 2003 why did W Get an AUTHORIZATION from Congress in October 2002 to use military force against IRAQ.



Logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. You ask the question as though there are not TONS of reasonable answers. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Have you ever heard of an ongoing war where the president is not allowed to use military force in it? I haven’t. I’m pretty sure you’re a dumb ass if you think we were at war all that time.



Logical fallacy of Proof by Ridicule. ANd retardedness. Politics often restrict a President's use of force in wartime. 



Your arguments and positions are generally bullshit layered with different types of bullshit.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > *Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.*
> ...


*You are a liar because you cannot deny the fact that the inspections were peaceful and Iraq was not at war with anybody.*
You are the liar because I can, have and do deny exactly that. More importantly so does history. Can you not read?
The Iraq war-including both invasions-was the righteous result of Iraqi aggression. 

*There were no skirmishes in Iraq during the four months after 1441 was passed and prior to the US invasion. So you cannot refute what I said.*
Wow! Four whole months? Unfortunately it is well recorded that every day of that time the US and UK were flying combat aircraft on combat missions in Iraqi airspace and that was clearly acts of war. It is also very expensive and was a daily expense being born by the American taxpayer year after year. After a decade or so it had become obvious that Saddam had no intention of honoring the promises he made to obtain a cease fire. He had to go. So we took him out and made the world a better place. We deserve credit for that. And I am pleased and proud of my Nation's actions.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> You are the liar because I can, have and do deny exactly that.



Liar. Show me the post where you produced facts based evidence, a report, an eyewitness, anything that indicated that the inspections from November 2002 through March 17 2003. were marred by violence, bloodshed or war or fisticuffs or yelling or any bad behavior of any kind. You cannot deny the 1441 inspections were peaceful because they were in fact extremely peaceful. 

What case have you made that the 1441 inspections were not peaceful? 

You are pathetic. You cant lie and get away with saying you posted something that does not exist. It cannot exist because the entire world witnessed four and a half months of peaceful inspections until W forced them to cease so he could bring violence death and destruction into Iraq by starting a war to disarm Iraq of suspected WMD. 





Correll said:


> Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.



you are always about format. 

The Bush Doctrine is aggressive is it not? 

A military assault and invasion labeled Shock and AWE is aggressive is it not? 

The Bush Doctrine does not need a certain or imminent threat. This makes W’s preventive war in Iraq absolutely indistinguishable from outright aggression does it not? 

So why cant you reply by saying that the invasion of Iraq was not aggressive and here is why.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 14, 2021)

*Liar. Show me the post where you produced facts based evidence, a report, an eyewitness, anything that indicated that the inspections from November 2002 through March 17 2003. were marred by violence, bloodshed or war or fisticuffs or yelling or any bad behavior of any kind. You cannot deny the 1441 inspections were peaceful because they were in fact extremely peaceful.*

Better yet show me where I made any claim about 1441 inspection violence. I claimed we were at war with Iraq during that time period and we were as I showed. Any inspections made were not acceptable to prove Saddam was willing to abide by his cease fire promises that he had been given far more than reasonable time to fulfill. That failure resulted in the ultimatum that he must step down as head of government or be removed by force. Which he was.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

For the record 9thIDdoc joined the discussion first responding to the post where I was stating these facts. 

Note: I used the phrase “during peacetime”

W invaded Iraq during peacetime : peaceful inspections post27464281 


NotfooledbyW said:


> Iraq is a Muslim Nation that was invaded, bombed, and its people were shot at by an army and bombed by its air forces that was sent in during peacetime from a predominantly Christian nation that became an occupying army when the dictatorship fell.



I also stated the FACT that W Started the war - the point being it was during peace time. post27464281 





NotfooledbyW said:


> They had the right to disagree with an invading army no matter what that invasion army intended and wanted them to do.   They did not start it - W did.




I have been pointing out facts regarding the ramp up to the start of the Iraq War which STARTED on MARCH 19 2003 to disarm Iraq of hidden WMD and a war that was not authorized by Congress until 2003. 

But @9thlDdoc wants us to believe Congress authorized the 1991 First Gulf War in 2002 and the 1991 ware didn’t start until 2002 because there was no 1991 ceasefire. 



9thIDdoc said:


> Iraq invaded Kuwait. Killed pillaged and raped. Then refused to give back what it stole. It fully deserved the retribution it received.



Stupid I know.  @9thlDdoc got himself confused by the NFZ policy to protect the IRAQI KURDS (Not KUWAITIS) and IRAQI SHIITES (Not KUWAITIS) and which has nothing to do with the UNSC ceasefire agreement from 1991. 

The NFZ flights were not authorized by the UNSC and the 1991 ceasefire agreement is a UNSC RESOLUTION. 









I wrote *There were no skirmishes in Iraq during the four months after 1441 was passed and prior to the US invasion. So you cannot refute what I said.*

9thIDdoc replied apparently failing to understand what ‘ skirmishes’ means


9thIDdoc said:


> Wow! Four whole months? Unfortunately it is well recorded that every day of that time the US and UK were flying combat aircraft on combat missions in Iraqi airspace and that was clearly acts of war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Better yet show me where I made any claim about 1441 inspection violence.



Does that mean you agree when I wrote  the first post you responded to on Monday July 12 2021?

I Wrote:.“Iraq is a Muslim Nation that was invaded, bombed, and its people were shot at by an army and bombed by its air forces that was sent in during peacetime”




NotfooledbyW said:


> Iraq is a Muslim Nation that was invaded, bombed, and its people were shot at by an army and bombed by its air forces that was sent in during peacetime from a predominantly Christian nation that became an occupying army when the dictatorship fell.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Better yet show me where I made any claim about 1441 inspection violence.
> ...


Most of what you claimed as "fact" was entirely untrue as I have pointed out. You have been refuted and have not even attempted to provide support for your wild and imaginary claims. What part of "you lie" do you not understand?


----------



## surada (Jul 14, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



There was NO war in Iraq when the US invaded.. Up to the last minute KSA and the Emirates were inviting Saddam to leave Iraq for exile in one country or the other.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



Not constantly does shit like that, ie asserting something that is complete bullshit and using it as a foundation to build further ideas and attacks.


His entire world view is a house of cards built on top of a foundation of bullshit. 


Of course, ALL liberals are like that, to a greater or lesser extent. Not is noteworthy because he is an extreme example of it.


----------



## surada (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



American conservatives who know about the Middle East and the oil business opposed Bush's invasion. Its not about liberals.. Its about ignorance.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > You are the liar because I can, have and do deny exactly that.
> ...




Pointing out that an argument is a logical fallacy is not about format, it is about the substance of your argument, ie that it does not make sense.  

You are constantly just confidently asserting things, that are just not true. Your arguments are peppered with such shit. And often, you end up using those assertions to build your conclusions on top of.

And you ignore it when these idiocies or delusions are  pointed out to you. You are not engaged in good faith discussion.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



What is your long term solution to muslim terrorism?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are constantly just confidently asserting things, that are just not true.




Like what?


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You are constantly just confidently asserting things, that are just not true.
> ...




The the things you just cut, which I cited and then offered my analysis. 


To do that, is either incredible dishonest, or completely retarded, or utterly deluded. 


IMO, on some level, you know that your position is complete shit. THat is why you constantly just jump around, making stupid claims and ignoring any points that you cannot refute, and any other number of dishonest games. 


You are not engaged in good faith discussion. 


YOu are actually significantly worse than Wally the example here.


----------



## surada (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Muslim terrorism wasn't the problem in Iraq at all. The invasion gave birth to ISIS.

Iraq was NOT a threat to any of the neighbors...Even KSA opposed the invasion. That's why Prince Bandar was recalled.

Israel wanted Saddam overthrown.. just like they wanted Syria isolated and destabilized. Read Clean Break Strategy.

Our rash and ignorant actions made Iran ascendant and opened up a whole new set of problems.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Most of what you claimed as "fact" was entirely untrue as I have pointed out.



Is the START DATE shown below true?

Is the definition of START shown below universally excepted to be true? 









Was it peaceful in Iraq during the four months that preceded the START date of the Iraq War that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...




Simple question. What is your long term solution to muslim terrorism. I don't need detailed plans, just the general idea.


I have asked you before. You never answer.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Then refused to give back what it stole.



Are you suggesting that W got half a million Iraqis killed starting in 2003 to recover art that was stolen in 1990 from Kuwait and not returned by SH?


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Then refused to give back what it stole.
> ...




Are you suggesting that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Are you suggesting that?



No? 9thIDdoc brought it up telling the readers that “ Iraq invaded Kuwait. Killed pillaged and raped. Then refused to give back what it stole. It fully deserved the retribution it received.”

FACT:  SH invaded Kuwait in 1991. Never to do so again. Killed pillaged and raped in 1991. 

FACT: SH’s soldiers killed, pillaged and raped in 1991. There are no reports that Iraqi soldiers were killing, pillaging and raping in March 2003. 

FACT: SH refused to give back everything it stole including perhaps some artwork. That was the only issue that continued to be true in March 2003. 

Of the few things mentioned by @9thID   justifying the killing of half a million Iraqis only the ‘stolen stuff’ continued to be relevant when W decided to kill and maim Iraqis in order to disarm Iraq of suspected WMD STARTING on MARCH 19 2003 when the Iraq War began.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Are you suggesting that?
> ...



I'm not even going to check, I'm going to go out on a limb here.


Did 9thdoc list a bunch of other reasons and provocations from Saddam Hussien's Iraq, that you cut and ignored and now are dishonestly focusing on ONE issue out of context, like a dishonest troll?


MMMM?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Did you post this 9thIDdoc ? Could you please explain what your definition of “began” might be?

I accept this definition ‘begin’ as follows: “start; perform or undergo the first part of (an action or activity).” 



9thIDdoc said:


> When Saddam refused to leave, U.S. and allied forces launched an attack on Iraq on March 20 and thus began what became known as the Iraq War.




In the very same post dud you claim the ceasefire did not end the war.



9thIDdoc said:


> The cease fire obviously did not end the war.



So you are on record here saying the war that W started on March 20 2003 was the same war to liberate of Kuwait that his father along with United Nations ended with a ceasefire in 1991. 

FACT: The stated mission of the 2003 war was to disarm Iraq of WMD. 

FACT: The stated mission of the 1991 war was to liberate Kuwait. 

So, in observing those two facts why do you claim that the 1991 cease fire did not end the war to liberate Kuwait? 

And why did you simultaneously post the fact that the war to disarm Iraq of WMD actually started on March 20 2003 which means and proves there was no war with Iraq prior to MARCH 20 2003 as the UN with proactive cooperation from Iraq was in FACT disarming Iraq peacefully for several months.

You contradict yourself but you tell me I’m wrong about the FACTS.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Did you post this 9thIDdoc ? Could you please explain what your definition of “began” might be?
> 
> I accept this definition ‘begin’ as follows: “start; perform or undergo the first part of (an action or activity).”
> 
> ...




Meaningless semantics. A state of war existing and a period of war being named something, is not a contraction.


You are just playing retarded games.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Did 9thdoc list a bunch of other reasons and provocations from Saddam Hussien's Iraq,



Nope! 

You have time for format bitching but no time to click on that ‘arrow in a circle’ to check the facts about something immediately and firsthand. 

Here are 9thIDdoc’s first few quotes; 



9thIDdoc said:


> Iraq invaded Kuwait. Killed pillaged and raped. Then refused to give back what it stole. It fully deserved the retribution it received.





9thIDdoc said:


> There was nothing "peaceful" about Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and it's violation of the cease fire agreement continued that war. If Iraq didn't want war it shouldn't have started and then continued one. It may have been a mistake to allow Iraq to continue as a nation. Maybe we should have made it a part of Kuwait.





9thIDdoc said:


> You are the liar. Iraq failed to abide by the cease fire agreement although given chance after chance to do so over a ten year period and then ignored a UN ultimatum. So the war continued. A cease fire is a provisional pause in hostilities; not a peace treaty. History is quite clear. In the end Saddam was the one responsible for the Iraqi deaths like so many others. Iraq started the war and continued it. It has no one to blame but itself.





9thIDdoc said:


> When Saddam refused to leave, U.S. and allied forces launched an attack on Iraq on March 20 and thus began what became known as the Iraq War.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Meaningless semantics




You are so predictable In your absolute resistance to facts.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Did 9thdoc list a bunch of other reasons and provocations from Saddam Hussien's Iraq,
> ...




I count TWELVE other reasons listed in your excerpts. YOu are a dishonest and deluded hack.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> A state of war existing and a period of war being named something, is not a contraction.



Was the military mission in the 2003 Iraq war to liberate Kuwait? 

The state of war to liberate Kuwait ended in 1991 when all parties agreed to the ceasefire. That is a FACT. 

You can call The NFZ enforcements a state of war all you want, But the 1991 war came to an end and the 2003 war started all on its own when Iraq was at peace with the world and no state of war existed at that precise moment in history during the non-violent peaceful inspections.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> I count TWELVE other reasons listed in your excerpts.




I was responding at that time to the first post by 2ndID. How many do you count in that one? liar. 

What are the other nine that you count? So I can respond to your lies.


----------



## surada (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Then refused to give back what it stole.
> ...



Hobby Lobby stole a lot of Iraqi art.


----------



## surada (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Did you post this 9thIDdoc ? Could you please explain what your definition of “began” might be?
> ...



The Saudis paid the US a million dollars a day for air cover for the Kurds... for years. Saddam never hit a single US aircraft.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > A state of war existing and a period of war being named something, is not a contraction.
> ...



Irrelevant bullshit. ANd the crap you built on top of that? Even more irrelevant bullshit.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I count TWELVE other reasons listed in your excerpts.
> ...




Read them yourself. Oh,  you can't see things that you don't agree with. 


That is a real problem. You should be working on that.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...




So, he only TRIED to kill American military personnel, while they were conducting patrols. Since he failed, that means in your mind, it did not happen?


Do you understand that other people might not agree?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Most of what you claimed as "fact" was entirely untrue as I have pointed out.
> ...


#2344  _The allied coalition’s military offensive against Iraq began on January 16–17, 1991,..._
I neither know nor care how many Iraqi were killed. If Iraq wanted to keep it's citizens safe it wouldn't have started  a war of aggression.
You have posted no link for your other attempt at smoke and mirrors. Not that the definition of "start" is being contested anyway.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Then refused to give back what it stole.
> ...


No. I am stating the *fact* that Saddam started the war with his theft of Kuwait and his refusal to return it to his rightful owners.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > A state of war existing and a period of war being named something, is not a contraction.
> ...


A cease fire is not an armistice or peace treaty. When a cease fire is violated the war continues as it did in Iraq. Korea Vietnam and elsewhere. A cease fire is basically a statement that "If you don't shoot at me I won't shoot at you until or unless..." If either or both sides resume shooting, the cease fire obviously no longer exists. As noted Iraq and the US continued to engage each other at intervals continually during NFZ enforcement. So neither side was abiding by any cease fire. History.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> There was nothing "peaceful" about Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and it's violation of the cease fire agreement continued that war.



The Res 1441 Inspections were peaceful. Do you accept that FACT?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> When a cease fire is violated the war continues as it did in Iraq.



Who says? 

Why did W get a new AUMF in October 2002?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The Res 1441 Inspections were peaceful. Do you accept that FACT?



I see you do not agree Correll. 

Then you must have evidence or testimony from active participants that the four month inspection period was not characterized by peace; was not free from war, strife, commotion, and/or violence. 

Where is it?


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > The Res 1441 Inspections were peaceful. Do you accept that FACT?
> ...




I've repeatedly explained my views on the inspections. You have never addressed them before, so I don't see any reason to think you would now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Does March come before April? 






FACT for Correll : The Ceasefire agreement was dated April 3 - April 6 



9thIDdoc said:


> As noted Iraq and the US continued to engage each other at intervals continually during NFZ enforcement.



Protecting Kurds and Shiites by enforcement of two NFZ’s was not carried out because SH was in material breach of the UNSC Resolution 687 (Passed on April 3 1991) 

Starting in MARCH These were unilateral operations at first set up by the US UK and France. 

Iraqi no-fly zones
Date 1 March 1991 – 20 March 2003 (12 years, 2 weeks and 5 days) Location Iraq Result Inconclusive Ended with the beginning of the Iraq War


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> I've repeatedly explained my views on the inspections.




I’m not asking for your opinion and lies regarding the inspectors motives and other bullshit like that. I’m asking for your basis in fact or a case to support your observations that the four month period of inspections preceding the start of the Iraq War (2003 through 2011) was violent and chaotic and in the midst of actual military conflict. And therefore not peaceful.


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > I've repeatedly explained my views on the inspections.
> ...




Is that really what I said, or are you playing silly games again? Or should I say, "still"?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Is that really what I said,




I didn’t say you said it liar..


I said I see you disagree. 












If you agree the 1441 inspections were peaceful, say so.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Does March come before April?
> 
> View attachment 512795
> 
> ...


Thank you for finally admitting reality. Nobody cares about your or the UN opinion on the matter.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Thank you for finally admitting reality. Nobody cares about your or the UN opinion on the matter.



That post was not an opinion on the matter. 

The NFZ Enforcement began a month before the Ceasefire agreement. That fact means you are a liar every time you claim that the NFZ enforcement was a continuation of the 1991 war because SH violated the ceasefire agreement. 

It was sold as a separate humanitarian military operation to protect the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South. 

It was by no means a continuation of the 1991 War that ended in April 1991 by every    rational and informed human being’s account.


Iraq was at peace with the world in March 2003 when W started a war and disturbed the peace to the tune of killing half a million Iraqis fight no reason.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Does March come before April?
> 
> View attachment 512795
> 
> ...


*Protecting Kurds and Shiites by enforcement of two NFZ’s was not carried out because SH was in material breach of the UNSC Resolution 687 (Passed on April 3 1991)*
That is most certainly (your) opinion rather than fact. You actually have no way of knowing why the NFZs were instituted or whether SH was in violation of any given applicable
cease fire (UN or otherwise) or not. That he stood in violation of the cease fire is historical fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> That he stood in violation of the cease fire is historical fact.



That is a fact. You found one fact. Congratulations! I do not dispute that fact - Never did. Facts are funny things. There can be more than one and they can be related or not related and they have to be assembled in an honest way if one is truly interested in knowing the truth about something. 

It is also a fact that the US Military began a military operation in Iraq’s northern airspace to protect the Kurds in March of 1991 

It is also a fact that the ceasefire agreement went into effect in April 1991.

When you account first those facts it is wrong to conclude that the NFZs were set up because SH violated the ceasefire agreement. 

The US military was going to protect the Kurds and have a humanitarian excuse to have a presence and control over Iraq’s air space forever if need be.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 15, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > That he stood in violation of the cease fire is historical fact.
> ...


*It is also a fact that the US Military began a military operation in Iraq’s northern airspace to protect the Kurds in March of 1991.*
That was a stated reason for the start of the Northern No-fly Zone. Whether that was the actual reason or whether it was the reason it continued basically until Saddam was captured following the second invasion is a matter of opinion. It was also very much about the policy of containment (IMO).
_From March to December 2002 the number of bombs dropped increased by 300%.[9] This was recognised as "a clear indication that the no-fly zone is being used to destroy the country's air defence systems in anticipation of an all-out attack".[9] Whitehall officials privately admitted to the Guardian that the no-fly zones were being used to weaken Iraq's air defence systems instead of the stated aim of defending the Marsh Arabs and the Shia population of Iraq.[9] Iraqi no-fly zones conflict - Wikipedia_

*When you account first those facts it is wrong to conclude that the NFZs were set up because SH violated the ceasefire agreement.*
That may be your opinion and you are welcome to it. It is also apparently your opinion that that is somehow important and I disagree with that also. My opinion is that if one or both sides are committing acts or war against each other a cease fire is obviously NOT in effect. A cease fire requires that, well, you cease fire.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 15, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


Not just the GOP...BOTH parties were pushing for the war...funding the war...and vehemently opposed to anyone who spoke against it. 

There is no two party system...on the IMPORTANT things. 

War, destruction, and murder is very important to our criminals in charge.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 15, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> Not just the GOP...BOTH parties were pushing for the war.



That’s simply not true. 

(A) Through September 2002 the BushCheney WARMONGERS alone (NOT DEMOCRATS) pushed for war - no UN inspections - just war based on the 1991 UN ceasefire agreement and 2001 AUMF for the war on terror..

(B) In September 2002 Warmonger Blair in the UK  was blocked from helping W and DC secure Iraq’s oil reserves by getting rid of SH by air and ground invasion because UK Parliament says that’s a war crime and the only way to justify enforcing a UN ceasefire is to go through the UN. 

(C) W did not want to start a war by invasion unless he had TB (his Poodle BLAIR) in on the action.

(D) November 2002 W & TB get Resolution 1441 passed at the UN demanding SH cooperate with new round  of inspections or face consequences. 

(E) DECEMBER 2002 1441 inspections begin - Colin Powell says Iraq is cooperating and if cooperation  continues war is not inevitable..






						Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos
					






					2001-2009.state.gov
				




SECRETARY POWELL: “They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues. “

(F) Inspectors don’t find WMD through MARCH 2003, but informed UNSC that verification that IRAQ was disarmed could take another three months.

Therefore the whole truth is that Democrats, including the current sitting President, were not Pushing for war. Biden’s position was to give the inspectors the three months they needed. 

Senator Joe Biden *3:  “ 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.”  U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq. 


6 out of ten Americans polled in February 2003 wanted W to give the inspectors more time. Just about all in favor of UN participation are Democrats. 

W pushed for war in MARCH 2003 abd started it because if inspectors had three more months all the lies about WMD W was saying would have been exposed. 

W Pushed the war - he was the
GOP. 

Democrats wanted SH disarmed peacefully through the UN - exhausting all peaceful means before resorting to war. 

Clinton and Kerry pushed for UN resolution and avoiding war if possible. 

HUGE Difference and it should not be disregarded.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> My opinion is that if one or both sides are committing acts or war against each other a cease fire is obviously NOT in effect.




Why did W get AUMF from CONGRESS in October 2002 in case the use of military force against Iraq might be necessary if as you claim the 1991 war was ongoing? 

It makes absolutely no sense what you are saying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> You actually have no way of knowing why the NFZs were instituted



WHY don’t I?


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Gabe Lackmann said:
> 
> 
> > Not just the GOP...BOTH parties were pushing for the war.
> ...


Who voted for the war? Who voted to fund that war? Who voted for the Patriot Act? Look at the voting record....you bias fucking ****.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea 
Bayh (D-IN), Yea 
Biden (D-DE), Yea 
Breaux (D-LA), Yea 
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea 
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea 
Carper (D-DE), Yea 
Cleland (D-GA), Yea 
Clinton (D-NY), Yea 
Daschle (D-SD), Yea 
Dodd (D-CT), Yea 
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea 
Edwards (D-NC), Yea 
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea 
Harkin (D-IA), Yea 
Hollings (D-SC), Yea 
Johnson (D-SD), Yea 
Kerry (D-MA), Yea 
Kohl (D-WI), Yea 
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea 
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea 
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea 
Miller (D-GA), Yea 
Nelson (D-FL), Yea 
Nelson (D-NE), Yea 
Reid (D-NV), Yea 
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea 
Schumer (D-NY), Yea 
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea


----------



## Correll (Jul 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Gabe Lackmann said:
> ...




Thank you for bothering to dig up data. Now Not will demonstrate for you, why it was a waste of time, by ignoring it.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> Gabe Lackmann said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


I don't care. People think time erases the truth. Though Google is trying very mightily to make that true, I still remember the truth. On the IMPORTANT issues, war, and the funding of war, the two 'sides' are like peas in a pod.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> I don't care.



That is what enables you to deny the truth and believe only what you want to believe. 

I remember too,  but I refuse to trust my memory. I challenge my memory for purposes of seeking and knowing the absolute truth about things.

Knowing truth has gone totally out of fashion these days.  

I THINK Trumpism and truth denial had its seeds planted with the Iraq invasion. That is the time when warmongering W and warmongering Republicans, backed by a warmongering contingent of about 40% of all voters ( which included just about all of America’s white evangelical Christian Republicans) threw truth out the window. 

I presented multiple verifiable facts including what Biden said on the floor of the Senate before the start of war. He pushed W to get UN backing by giving the peaceful means to disarm Iraq more time. The three months the inspectors wanted to finish disarming Iraq peacefully. 

That in itself shows Biden would accept the necessity of war only if the rest of the world went along with it. 

But you don’t care - you need to spew the propaganda of the electorate that deem themselves “Independent” or the far far antiwar left who would not back a war if some other military dropped a bomb on their grandma!s House.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Gabe Lackmann said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care.
> ...


And your selective editing tells me a lot of about your cognitive dissonance. TLDR.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I presented multiple verifiable facts including what Biden said on the floor of the Senate before the start of war. He pushed W to get UN backing by giving the peaceful means to disarm Iraq more time. The three months the inspectors wanted to finish disarming Iraq peacefully.
> 
> That in itself shows Biden would accept the necessity of war only if the rest of the world went along with it.



Correll do you disagree the the above specifically? Do you believe Biden pushed for war to start in MARCH 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> And your selective editing tells me a lot of about your cognitive dissonance.



What selective editing. Do you know you can click on that little arrow in a circle and you can see the entire post. POOF just like that. Infill context. 

So you lied if that is what you are referring to as selective editing. 

You said “I don’t care” .. does that have some peculiar meaning in your head.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> People think time erases the truth.



Actually time enhances truth for the intellectually curious sort of mind. 

personal memories can get fuzzy and biased toward error over time. 

I’ll bet you didn’t hear what Biden said in February 2003 when you formed your false impression that Democrats pushed for war just like Republicans. 

Nancy Pelosi strongly rejected a policy of invading Iraq in March 2003 - She voted against the AUMF five months prior. She was never attacked by fellow Democrats that I recall for pushing against Republican warmongering as strongly as she did. She has been third in line for the presidency more time than anybody since the Iraq disaster began.


----------



## surada (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for finally admitting reality. Nobody cares about your or the UN opinion on the matter.
> ...




Yes they were. Iraq was also crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions. All Bush's invasion did was give power to Iran and birth to ISIS. One of the dumbest foreign policy blunders EVER.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> the two 'sides' are like peas in a pod.




All leaders From Nancy Pelosi to Joe Biden there are no Democratic peas in the same fucking warmongering pod with Cheney Rumsfeld and Richard B Land. 

Most rank and file Democrats were in the same pod as the Pope and BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA - opposed to W’s DUMB war policy of invading Iraq to find WMD that were not there.


----------



## Correll (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > I presented multiple verifiable facts including what Biden said on the floor of the Senate before the start of war. He pushed W to get UN backing by giving the peaceful means to disarm Iraq more time. The three months the inspectors wanted to finish disarming Iraq peacefully.
> ...




You know my position on the "peaceful disarming" of Iraq.  That Biden may have been a  believer in that fools errand, is irrelevant to me. 

I have no opinion on what Biden was or was not doing in March 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> You know my position on the "peaceful disarming" of Iraq. That Biden may have been a believer in that fools errand, is irrelevant to me.



If Biden believed in what you call a fool’s errand then W believed in the exact same fools errand but with disastrous results according to the smartest man in the world - Trump. 

That’s because W Actually sent the US military in to start a war that killed half a million Iraqis on a fools errand to find the WMD that he says SH was hiding. 

And you still support killing half a million Iraqis knowing they died because W sent 150,000 Americans in uniform on a fools errand.


----------



## Correll (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You know my position on the "peaceful disarming" of Iraq. That Biden may have been a believer in that fools errand, is irrelevant to me.
> ...



That in no way follows. Biden believing something in no way supports the idea that President Bush believed it. 

Explain your reasoning with making that claim or admit that you are just talking shit and nothing you say has any credibility and that you should be ashamed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> That in no way follows. Biden believing something in no way supports the idea that President Bush believed it.



Biden and Bush both believed SH had to be disarmed of WMD and verified by UN inspectors or SH must be removed from power.

Is that true or false?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion is that if one or both sides are committing acts or war against each other a cease fire is obviously NOT in effect.
> ...


Makes all the sense in the world. Some clueless people like yourself thought the war ended with the cease fire.
Much more importantly Congress holds the purse strings and the preparation and execution of an action that large is very expensive. It also takes time to mass the forces necessary. Since there was time to do so it would have been foolish to NOT to be sure of Congress's support.

 Are you seriously trying to claim this was not warfare?
1_998 - Operation Desert Fox_​_In response to Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, the United States Government planned Operation DESERT FOX in the fall of 1998. The primary mission of DESERT FOX was to strike military targets in Iraq that contributed to its ability to produce, store, maintain, and deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The U.S. government expected to achieve several goals with the operation. First, it would degrade Iraq's ability to create and employ WMD. Second, the attacks would diminish Iraq's capability to wage war against its neighbors. Third, the operation would impress upon Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international agreements, including allowing United Nations inspectors unfettered access to Iraqi sites. The United States and Great Britain launched Operation DESERT FOX on December 16, 1998, after U.N. Chief Inspector Richard Butler notified the U.N. that Iraq had failed to provide full cooperation during inspections.

With nearly 200 U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy carrier-based aircraft, as well as one dozen British aircraft, planners identified nearly 100 targets in seven categories: air defense systems, command and control, WMD security, WMD industry and production, Republican Guard units, airfields, and "economic" targets. The initial strikes consisted of approximately 250 Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as 40 sorties launched from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. On the second night, Air Force B-52s stationed on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean employed air launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), while the B-1 bomber made its combat debut by striking at Republican Guard targets. Also on December 17, USAF aircraft based in Kuwait participated,  as did British Tornado aircraft. The British contribution totaled 15 percent of the sorties flown in DESERT FOX._

By December 19, U.S. and British aircraft had struck 97 targets, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen claimed the operation was a success. Supported by Secretary Cohen, as well as United States Central Command commander General Anthony C. Zinni and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Henry H. Shelton, President Bill Clinton declared "victory" in Operation DESERT FOX. In total, the 70-hour campaign saw U.S. forces strike 85 percent of their targets, 75 percent of which were considered "highly effective" strikes. More than 600 sorties were flown by more than 300 combat and support aircraft, and 600 air dropped munitions were employed, including 90 air launched cruise missiles and 325 Tomahawk land attack missiles (TLAM). Operation DESERT FOX inflicted serious damage to Iraq's missile development program


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > You actually have no way of knowing why the NFZs were instituted
> ...


You are the one making the claim so it's up to you back it up. I seriously doubt you had any role in establishing the no-fly zones. Prove me wrong.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

surada said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Iraq was by no means crippled although the coalition failing to do so in the first invasion had proved to be a serious mistake. As was allowing Saddam to remain in power.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Gabe Lackmann said:
> 
> 
> > the two 'sides' are like peas in a pod.
> ...


The primary reason for the 2nd invasion was to remove Saddam from power and finally end the war. Saddam had well and truly proven to be an insane homicidal manic determined to be a threat to peaceful nations as long as possible. It was well past time to end the threat he posed. So we did and the world became a better place.


----------



## surada (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



They most certainly were crippled.. Even their oil reserves were ruined from lack of reserve mgmt. 

See Clean Break Strategy.

Have you ever been to Iraq? There were over 50 Christian churches in Badghad before Bush's invasion.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

surada said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


If they were crippled how did they manage to defeat all comers in the civil wars that followed our withdrawal? Why would I care about religion in Bagdad or want to go to Iraq?


----------



## surada (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



Bush destroyed Iraq's police force and military. 

You obviously know nothing about Iraq, the ME or the oil business.  Yet you are an "expert". Have you read Clean Break Strategy?


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Gabe Lackmann said:
> ...


mmm...ok...sounds legit.






And Saddam was going to bomb the US mainland while Osama Bin Laden entered along the coast with a crack team of jihadi sappers to blow up the Statue of Liberty.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

surada said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


The destruction of Iraq's military was necessary and well deserved.

_Clean Break Strategy? _Link?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Cute. But stupid.


----------



## surada (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



It was a profoundly stupid blunder and opposed by Oilmen, Arabs, historians, ex-pats, diplomats , military brass and Dubya's father.

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf
Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of itsmost dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace"to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Gabe Lackmann said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


I am not the one parroting 20 year old, proven false, government propaganda...but I'm stupid? K bud. Truth doesn't tarnish medal G.I. Joe., you're safe.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> And Saddam was going to bomb the US mainland while Osama Bin Laden entered along the coast with a crack team of jihadi sappers to blow up the Statue of Liberty.



Its obvious that 9thIDdoc was living in traumatic fear of the Saddam Hussein boogeyman until half a million Iraqis and SH and his evil sons were killed and the US taxpayers spent seven trillion dollars (according to DJT) to make the fear go away.,

Would it not have been wiser and less costly to let the inspectors disarm Iraq in 2003 and build living quarters and beds inside the US nuclear silos burrowed deep in the granite of the Rocky Mountains to let the scared Americans like 9thIDdoc hide there and be treated for the irrational fear that Dick Cheney inflicted upon him?


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Gabe Lackmann said:
> 
> 
> > And Saddam was going to bomb the US mainland while Osama Bin Laden entered along the coast with a crack team of jihadi sappers to blow up the Statue of Liberty.
> ...


It's amazing after ALL these years. After all that has transpired. All of the lies, wasted lives, and treasure, that people still try to pass off the same lines. 
It's incredible. People just never learn. They would completely support us attacking any one for any reason, with out question.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The primary reason for the 2nd invasion was to remove Saddam from power and finally end the war.



There was no ongoing war to end in March  2003. A new war was officially started in March 2003 because W decided on March 8 that Iraq could not be disarmed of WMD by the ongoing peaceful means of inspections followed by long term monitoring. 

When it was discovered by the invading army that there were no WMD to be found in IRAQ the original deluded supporters of the March 8 justification for a war of aggression and invasion of Iraq fell back to the post-invasion delusion that SH was a threat that had to be removed because we already invaded. In others words the invasion justified the invasion and they started shouting back when W said bring em on. So Americans always back our boys when they are getting shot at and blown to bits because they patrolled the streets in Humvees with shields sandbags and plywood.  

That support should not be confused with supporting the lies that led to the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe on March 19 2003 in the first place.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

surada said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


So I read enough to know that it concerns old Israeli political conjecture, is off topic and holds no interest to me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> It's amazing after ALL these years. After all that has transpired. All of the lies, wasted lives, and treasure, that people still try to pass off the same lines.
> It's incredible. People just never learn. They would completely support us attacking any one for any reason, with out question.



I consider Correll and 9thIDdoc to be like those WWII Japanese soldiers who never got word about Hiroshima and the end of war. 

They have built their own little desolate island of reality. Correll says SH was ‘poking the bear’ during the 1441 inspections not cooperating so he had to be taken out. 9thID came up with the 1991 invasion of Kuwait never ended as if SH was invading Kuwait again in 2003.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Gabe Lackmann said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing after ALL these years. After all that has transpired. All of the lies, wasted lives, and treasure, that people still try to pass off the same lines.
> ...


Sad. All very sad.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > The primary reason for the 2nd invasion was to remove Saddam from power and finally end the war.
> ...


Fact: Saddam was given the ultimatum that he must step down from power or be removed forcefully. The fact that he refused to do so was the ultimate cause of the 2nd invasion. Not inspections. Not WMDs. Saddam.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

It was all over for @Correl when the lie that SH was “poking the bear” in 2002 and the first few months of 2003 in post27082899


Correll said:


> A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit. It is strange with the benefit of hindsight that what he was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required.
> 
> An odd choice for him. Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit.
> 
> Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear



Why would anyone believe it when you wrote what SH “was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required” when the facts are that SH declared once again in December 2002 in response to the requirements of 1441 that he had no WMD and had no plans to make any. 

It was W that was lying not the evil dictator that just happened to control a country that sat upon the best grade of crude oil that is close to the surface of the earth and therefore the easiest and cheapest to extract.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Fact: Saddam was given the ultimatum that he must step down from power or be removed forcefully.



Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003. 

Did W just wake up one morning and decide to give SH an ultimatum because he could?


----------



## Correll (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It was all over for @Correl when the lie that SH was “poking the bear” in 2002 and the first few months of 2003 in post27082899
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> ...




Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds, and was lying. 


I mean, seriously. Did you think I was going to let you get away with that idiocy?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

Correll said:


> Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds, and was lying.



How does W ‘sincerely’  think SH had WMD’s, willing to start a war that could kill thousands and be entirely wrong? 

To start a war I’d expect a POTUS to demand solid irrevocable evidence from his or her sources on the location and existence of WMD stockpiles before committing troops to a ground invasion to take control of a Muslim Nation for the purpose of finding hidden stockpiles of  WMD. 

Your low tribal standard that W needed only to THINK that SH was hiding WMD to justify a war as long as his thinking was sincere is immoral unChrustian and dangerous. 

I can understand why you as a cultural non-religious white Christian can look at our country engaging in a war of aggression against a Muslim nation can hold such a low standard for W’s reckless and nonchalant decision to start a war in Iraq. Its because the brunt of war’s death and destruction would hit a Muslim population the hardest. And that fact is low on your concern list when you want America to go around the world starting wars because it can.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.



Why do you disagree with a question? 

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum      on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished. 

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO. 

 The consequences for the UK and US would be that American and British oil companies could be shut out from contracts to develop IRAQ’s oil fields due to the history of hostilities since 1991 when is cleared of possession of WMD.




HERE’s Some good ‘in the moment’ reading about oil in the ramp up to war  :

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
Manoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields
Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.
The Bush administration, intimately entwined with the global oil industry, is keen to pounce on Iraq's massive untapped reserves, the second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia's. But France and Russia, who hold a power of veto on the UN Security Council, have billion-dollar contracts with Baghdad, which they fear will disappear in 'an oil grab by Washington', if America installs a successor to Saddam.









						Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
					

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.




					www.google.com
				




Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear, whatever its political protestations about its motives for war. The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
Doubts about Saudi Arabia - even before 11 September, and even more so in its wake - led US strategists to seek a backup supply in the region. America needs 20 million barrels of crude a day, and analysts have singled out the country that could meet up to half that requirement: Iraq.
The current high price of oil is dragging the US economy further into recession. US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Fact: Saddam was given the ultimatum that he must step down from power or be removed forcefully.
> ...


Are you trying to claim you know the answer to your own question? The only person who can know the answer was the President himself. All the rest of us (especially you) can do is speculate. And you've proven that you would rather imagine than indulge in rational speculation. IMO it is obvious that the President finally decided Saddam was never going to allow an acceptable through inspection to verify an absence of WMB or long range missiles as he had pledged in the cease fire agreement. And that the possible existence of WMD in the hands of a proven murderous madman and dictator willing to wage war against peaceful neighbors as well as his own countrymen is simply unacceptable.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds, and was lying.
> ...


*How does W ‘sincerely’  think SH had WMD’s, willing to start a war that could kill thousands and be entirely wrong?*
The President hasn't been proven to have been wrong. Saddam had used WMD and also started an aggressive war that had killed (and was continuing to kill) thousands.


----------



## surada (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



Yes. Israel wanted him gone.. Operation Mass Appeal began in 1997-1998 to sell the war. Sir Derek Plumbly did a good job although he really screwed up the Booze Wars in November 2000. Sloppy operation .. The Brits were blowing each other up.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.
> ...


*Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.*
Saddam had already spent 10 years without allowing the acceptable inspections he had agreed to. There was no reason to believe he ever would.

*Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.*
Untrue. The US and the UK are sovereign entities whose foreign polices are not, and cannot be, dictated by the UN.

And we must not forget Saddam's attempt to steal Kuwait's and SA oil fields and the people killed in the attempt.


----------



## surada (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



LOLOL.. Saudi's oilfields are nowhere near Kuwait. 

Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.

Saudi Arabia had forgiven Iraq's OPEC quota debt.. Kuwait did not.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

surada said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Again wildly off topic. If you are confused please be advised that America is not Israel nor is America the UN (we just mostly finance it).


----------



## surada (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



LOLOL.. and you claim Saddam was stealing Saudi oil..

Read Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

surada said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Saddam captured Kuwait for it's oil and was massing to do the same with SA until they got their as kicked.


----------



## surada (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



No. Saddam had NO troops massed on the Saudi border. Cheney flat out lied.. and admitted he lied.

You're too much of a smart Alec to learn anything.

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS


			Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS
		


Cheney: I told King Fahd that the Iraqis were amassed on his border and we briefed him on the intelligence in terms of the size of the force that the Iraqis had already used in Kuwait.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Saddam had already spent 10 years without allowing the acceptable inspections he had agreed to.



Actually with 250 thousand troops assembled on his border there is absolutely no reason to believe SH Was not cooperating. 

In March 2003 SH was cooperating more than he ever had before. So why the ultimatum on March 17?

1441 demanded that SH cooperate. It was not a matter of belief - it was a master of if.     There was not a deadline to wrap up inspections. A few more months the world would have known the ultimate reality that WMD did not exist.  


Colin Powell said Iraq was cooperating from the beginning and war would be avoided if it continued.  

What changed? Why the ultimatum in March? It made absolutely no sense other than to beat the summer heat and end inspections before the truth became known. W was lying about the intelligence he claimed to have. intelligence was the one curtain he could hide behind when the truth came out.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

surada said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...


*No. Saddam had NO troops massed on the Saudi border. Cheney flat out lied.. and admitted he lied.*
The fact is that Iraqi forces attacked across the border into SA where they engaged US troops. Where did they come from?

February 1, 1991*A U.S. victory*

The Battle of Khafji was fought between American and Iraqi forces. The Iraqis were driven out of Saudi Arabia for an American victory.





__





						Persian Gulf War Timeline
					

The Persian Gulf War was a fight that went by many names such as Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, the Iraq War, and more. It was led by the United States against Iraq after Iraq invaded and captured Kuwait.



					www.softschools.com
				












						Persian Gulf War | Summary, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, Syndrome, Map, & Facts
					

Persian Gulf War, also called Gulf War,  (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait with the apparent aim of acquiring that nation’s large oil reserves...



					www.britannica.com
				




*Persian Gulf War*, also called *Gulf War*, (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait with the apparent aim of acquiring that nation’s large oil reserves, canceling a large debt Iraq owed Kuwait, and expanding Iraqi power in the region. On August 3 the United Nations Security Council called for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, and on August 6 the council imposed a worldwide ban on trade with Iraq. (The Iraqi government responded by formally annexing Kuwait on August 8.) Iraq’s invasion and the potential threat it then posed to Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer and exporter, prompted the United States and its western European NATO allies to rush troops to Saudi Arabia to deter a possible attack. Egypt and several other Arab nations joined the anti-Iraq coalition and contributed forces to the military buildup, known as Operation Desert Shield.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> *Persian Gulf War*, also called *Gulf War*, (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990.




Why is the end date of the War to liberate Kuwait always listed as 1991. 

You’d think it would be updated to today since there still is ongoing fighting going on in Iraq, if anybody listened to you. 

But who listens to crackpots except Trump voters.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 16, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > *Persian Gulf War*, also called *Gulf War*, (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990.
> ...


Most people with an interest in world history is aware of the fact that the names of wars and their dates is a matter of opinion and viewpoint. The First World War wasn't called that until there was a Second World. Before that in the US most people knew it as the Great War. It started and ended on different dates depending on the Nationality of the speaker or writer. And was also thought to be caused by different events. For example the First World War had different lengths and causes to the British than to the Americans. Whatever a conflict is called doesn't change historical facts. Call it what you will but whatever you call it doesn't change the facts of the conflict. Your game playing with semantics can't change reality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Your game playing with semantics can't change reality.



Its not semantics. Nice try? 



9thIDdoc said:


> Most people with an interest in world history is aware of the fact that the names of wars and their dates is a matter of opinion and viewpoint.



If you have an interest in world history you would be curious about the answer to that question. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.



Instead of rationalizing against the historical record of what W’s words and actions actually were: 



9thIDdoc said:


> IMO it is obvious that the President finally decided Saddam was never going to allow an acceptable through inspection to verify an absence of WMB or long range missiles as he had pledged in the cease fire agreement.



THE WORLD including the USA was operating under 1441 when the Iraq War began. 

The historical record has W going to the UN and getting 1441 passed in order to give SH a final opportunity to comply and avoid war. 

The historical record has inspections resumed and SH cooperating for almost three months. 

You opine that W “finally” decided Saddam was never going to allow an acceptable thorough inspection. 

However W set the inspections in motion - the historical document was drawn - the inspections were started 

Here is the critical Fact you will probably  ignore. 

W was ok with SH staying in power if the UNSC as a body determined Iraq was disarmed. Its in writing. Its through March 10. it’s in the historical record that W sees no risk of SH remaining in power if he was peacefully disarmed. 

That means the entire evil of SH’s diabolical past was not a sufficient threat through March 10 for W to engage military force in regime change. 

But then after MARCH 10 with no reversals of the continued cooperation with inspectors you say W finally decided the inspectors will never complete their mission / he was gonna git er done the AMERICAN WAY - military force.. DROP BOMBS  Blitzkrieg from Kuwait to Baghdad. The troops will disarm Iraq 

 And we all know historically what a disaster that turned out to be.


----------



## Correll (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds, and was lying.
> ...




I almost stopped reading at "and be entirely wrong", because that was such a monumentally stupid question, actually not even a real question, just a monumentally stupid accusation, thinly veiled as a question.

But, I'm glad I kept reading, as you expanded, we got to see a lot of our underlying assumptions that show what this is really about.

To you.


You are ASSUMING, that your opponents in this have a lower standard for the use of force, because of religious (and racial?) bigotry on their part. 


That is an assumption that you have done nothing to support, BUT, you have used to make countless racial and religious smear against your "white Christian" enemies. 


Support your assumption, or admit that you are the bigot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Support your assumption, or admit that you are the bigot.



These are the words of a white Christian bigot saying it was ok for W to make a mistake that caused half a million Muslim Iraqis to die as long as the mistake was sincere. 

“Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds,”

Its not ok. No president should be excused       for such a gruesome mistake when making a decision about starting an offensive war of aggression against a nation that posed zero threat to peace and security at the time of the invasion. 

And WMD was not W’s only mistake. His failure to heed warnings from experts and have a heavily fortified plan to deal with the aftermath of regime change in a Muslim nation with sectarian divides was not a sincere mistake either. His “greeted as liberators”  preparation miscalculation was fundamentally the reason the death toll was so high and the war lasted so long and the prinary  reason so many in uniform were killed and wounded too. 

You are a White Christian bigot for trying to blame Muslims for W’s inexcusable white Christian mistakes..Your posts are the only proof of that we need. AND THE LYING is enough proof. Poking the Bear!!!


----------



## Correll (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Support your assumption, or admit that you are the bigot.
> ...




So, i ask you to support your assumption,  Let's count your "supports".

1. You point out that I am white. Whoa. 

2. You point out that I am Christian.  

3. You call me a bigot.

4. You again, hold President Bush, fully responsible for ALL teh deaths, thus letting everyone else off the hook.

5. You make a point about how many died. Appeal to emotion. 

6. You point out that they were muslim. 

7. You assert it was "not ok".

8. You asserting it was a "gruesome mistake".

9. YOu asserting your opinion that it was a war of aggression.

10. You assert that Iraq posed "no threat to peace".

11. YOu assert your opinion that he should have planned for the insurgence 

12. AND that that was not a sincere mistake, ie claiming he wanted additional fighting. 

13. You assert that his liberation expectation was the reason for high casualties.

14. You point out that I am white, again.

15. You point out that I am Christian again.

16. You call me a name. 

17. You point out that I blame "Muslims" for...

18. You assert that the President's mistake were "inexcusable".

19. YOu point out that the President was white.

20. You point out that the President was Christian. 



MMmm, you said a lot. 


What you did not do, was in anyway support your assumption that I or President Bush or anyone has a lower standard of prroof for a war, if the target is Muslim.


Indeed, looking at the points you DID make, you spend a lot of time just discussing OUR race and faith, as though that in itself is "proof" or a "support" that we are bigots.


You do realize that if that is what you are doing, you are the one being the bigot here, not me?


Do you want to try again, and this time actually support your assumption that we have a lower standard for proof, for war, if the target is Muslim?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Let's count your "supports".





1. You point out that I am white. Whoa. 

you say you are. 

2. You point out that I am Christian. 

You say you are a cultural Christian

3. You call me a bigot.

based on your writing you are a bigot. 

4. You again, hold President Bush, fully responsible for ALL teh deaths, thus letting everyone else off the hook.


I don’t allow Terrorists and insurgents off the hook. it would have been nice if the invading army was greeted as liberators. BUT they were not and  it was a mistake to expect it. So the decision to invade unprepared are to blame for all the deaths and injuries the invasion caused. 

He is. There were no hostilities from the Iraqi side when W started the invasion occupation and insurgency. Can you dispute that? 

5. You make a point about how many died. Appeal to emotion. 

They died. A massive amount of Iraqi death caused by W’s decisions provoked emotions. I do not apologize for telling truth that provoke emotions. 

6. You point out that they were muslim. 

They are. Why do you want it removed from public discussion about why they are now dead Muslims. 

7. You assert it was "not ok".

It wasn’t. Why do you think it was considering how many died. 

8. You asserting it was a "gruesome mistake".

It was. 

9. YOu asserting your opinion that it was a war of aggression.

It was. it was not a response to a pending, immediate or imminent threat. 

10. You assert that Iraq posed "no threat to peace".

 It was to enforce a ten year old disarmament obligation that was being handled by the agency that bears responsibility at W’s request. It was an investigation that was forced to end prematurely. 

11. YOu assert your opinion that he should have planned for the insurgence 

he definitely should have because it was an offensive military operation  not a rigorous response to an actionable threat. 

12. AND that that was not a sincere mistake, ie claiming he wanted additional fighting. 

I didn’t say W wanted additional fight. He should have anticipated worst case scenario and prepared for it - not best case scenario.  Iraq’s oil will pay for it. 

13. You assert that his liberation expectation was the reason for high casualties.

It was. 

14. You point out that I am white, again.

you are arent you? 

15. You point out that I am Christian again.

you are arent you? 

16. You call me a name. 

Poor thing. 

17. You point out that I blame "Muslims" for...

You  did. 

18. You assert that the President's mistake were "inexcusable".

They are to thise who are not bigots 

19. YOu point out that the President was white.

He is and a white Christian to boot.,

20. You point out that the President was Christian.

He is and a white Christian to boot who made disastrous mistakes when he decided to invade Iraq when it was extremely small threat to peace and security to the world if disarmed of WMD. W said so himself - Iraq with SH in power would be no threat to peace and security in the world if disarmed of WMD.


----------



## Correll (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Let's count your "supports".
> ...




The point is, that NONE of that supports your ASSUMPTION that we, (on the other side of this issue from you), have a lower standard of proof for Muslims for war.


Especially that bit when I point out that you called me a name and you pretended that I was just whining?

That was you, doing two things. One, dodging the point and Two, being a ****. 


You have made an ASSUMPTION about us, and based quite a bit of your position on this issue and it seems, your world view on it, and based on your first attempt here, 

it looks like you cannot support it at all.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 17, 2021)

Actual History:
*Phttps://www.softschools.com/timelines/persian_gulf_war_timeline/246/ersian Gulf War Timeline*
_Timeline Description: The Persian Gulf War was a fight that went by many names such as Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, the Iraq War, and more. *It was led by the United States against Iraq after Iraq invaded and captured Kuwait.*


In 1990 Iraq invaded the country of Kuwait. This started the First Gulf War where US-led forces expelled Iraq and forced Iraq to come under UN restrictions regarding weapons and armaments. In 2003, when Iraq refused to comply to earlier agreements, the United States invaded Iraq in what is called the Second Gulf War and removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Read more at: __https://www.ducksters.com/geography/country/iraq_history_timeline.php_








						Iraq Timeline
					

History of Iraq




					www.infoplease.com
				








						Did you Support War in Iraq??
					

Your game playing with semantics can't change reality.   Its not semantics. Nice try?    Most people with an interest in world history is aware of the fact that the names of wars and their dates is a matter of opinion and viewpoint.   If you have an interest in world history you would be curious...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



1997The UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles (Oct 23).
Iraq expels American members of the UN inspection team (Nov. 13).1998Iraq suspends all cooperation with the UN inspectors (Jan. 13).
UN secretary-general Kofi Annan brokers a peaceful solution to the standoff. Over the next months Baghdad continued to impede the UN inspection team, demanding that sanctions be lifted (Feb. 23).
Saddam Hussein puts a complete halt to the inspections (Oct. 31).
Iraq agrees to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors (Nov. 14), but by a month later, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise (Dec. 15).
The United States and Britain began four days of intensive air strikes, dubbed Operation Desert Fox. The attacks focused on command centers, missile factories, and airfields?targets that the Pentagon believed would damage Iraq's weapons stores (Dec. 16?19).1999Beginning in January, weekly, sometimes daily, bombings of Iraqi targets within the northern no-fly zone begin, carried out by U.S. and British bombers. More than 100 air strikes take place during 1999, and continue regularly over the next years. The U.S. and Britain hope the constant barrage of air strikes will weaken Saddam Hussein's grip on Iraq (Jan. 1999?present).


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> The point is, that NONE of that supports your ASSUMPTION that we, (on the other side of this issue from you), have a lower standard of proof for Muslims for war.




Its not an assumption. Its based on what you say. You trued to lie that SH was not cooperating with inspectors just before the invasion because you are a white religious bigot who obviously  thinks you can lie and spread propaganda about Muslims and no one will notice. I notice these things.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> In 2003, when Iraq refused to comply to earlier agreements,




Your source is a liar. 

Iraq was complying with the most recent agreement 1441.

The US quit complying with 1441 when it invaded Iraq instead of disarming Iraq peacefully.


----------



## Correll (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, that NONE of that supports your ASSUMPTION that we, (on the other side of this issue from you), have a lower standard of proof for Muslims for war.
> ...




Blah, blah, blah, white, got it. 

Now, to support your assumption, now contrast that to a time when the question was, war with a WHITE and/or CHRISTIAN nation, the closer to the present the better of course.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > In 2003, when Iraq refused to comply to earlier agreements,
> ...


Sez who? We invaded Iraq that 2nd time to remove Saddam from power after he refused the ultimatum to step down. Any compliance with 1441 was no longer relevant. The US had decided that he had been given enough time and chances to comply. It was the US, not the UN, who had lead the fight against Saddam and declared the cease fire that Saddam broke. It was the US that paid the lion's share of the cost of the continuing war or "containment" if you prefer that term. Not the UN. The American taxpayer continued for 10 Years to pay though the nose to protect the world from Saddam with the rest of the world contributing little. Meanwhile Saddam pretended to the UN that he did not have WMD while simultaneously pretending to others that he did in hopes of avoiding deserved attacks. The UN's actions and lack thereof during this and following time periods has caused many US citizens to hope for a withdrawal from the UN. I am one of them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> We invaded Iraq that 2nd time



We didn’t invade to occupy Iraq the first time. We were part of a UN coalition the first time to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.

SH initiated the first war because he invaded Kuwait.  W initiated the second war  in order to invade Iraq.

They are two separate wars. You are a fool to link the two. There were skirmishes in between but by 2002 the aggressor nations that were a threat to peace in the Persuan Gulf Region were the UK and US. 

In 2003 SH did all he could to stop war. W lied all he could to start war. Even Trump knows that Bush lied. 


Some insight on Tony Blair’s role in ramping up for war in Iraq. 

Saddam Hussein may have been a loathsome dictator, but he was not a threat to the United States. He possessed no weapons of mass destruction and had no role in 9/11. The argument that the Iraq invasion was a necessary "Phase Two" in the "War on Terror" is laughable. The invasion of Iraq was a reckless war of choice made by belligerent policymakers with imperialistic personalities and opaque motives.

Blair attempted to slow Bush's rush to invade. He preached caution about regime change and urged that the focus be on disarming Saddam. He urged delay so that the weapons inspectors could do their work. He advised Bush to work through the United Nations and build support internationally, and he recommended that more time be devoted to planning for post-invasion challenges.









						15 years after the invasion of Iraq, still zero accountability for the war
					

The architects of the Iraq disaster are still around and pining for more confrontation around the world.




					www.google.com
				




What is most disconcerting for an American about the Chilcot report is not the advice of Blair, but the actions of Bush. The report makes clear that Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what allies advised, no matter what the international community thought, no matter what the weapons inspectors found, no matter that there was "no evidence of any Iraqi involvement with the attacks on the U.S. or active links to Al Qaeda," and no matter what ambiguities were contained in the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. This was rash bellicosity, and no one has been held to account for it. 

William S. Smith is managing director and a research fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at the Catholic University of America.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> now contrast that to a time when the question was, war with a WHITE and/or CHRISTIAN nation,




Iraq was the Bush Doctrine’s first and only shot. It was tested only on a Muslim Nation.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > We invaded Iraq that 2nd time
> ...


From your link:     
*BY WILLIAM S. SMITH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/20/18 07:00 AM EDT  102
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL*

Once again you attempted to counter recorded and accepted historical fact with wild-ass idiotic personal opinion. Didn't fly before; won't fly now. Get over your whining about American leaders and foreign policy. America and our leaders has been a far greater friend to the Iraqi people than their dictator ever thought about being.


----------



## surada (Jul 17, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



No you didn't pay.. The Saudis paid a milion dollars a day for 10 years.. and they didn't demand Saddam step down.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Once again you attempted to counter recorded and accepted historical fact with wild-ass idiotic personal opinion.



What historical facts from Mr Smith are you having a problem with. Everything he said about Tony Blair etc was based on historical fact. You on the other hand want to change the history of two separate wars into one continuous war so you don’t have to admit that a white Christian Bush started the 2003 through 2011 war and was the aggressor and is responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqis.

In other words you have motive to lie about the facts if the war and Mr Smith does not because he is honest about the unnecessary slaughter of so many human souls for no reason.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Once again you attempted to counter recorded and accepted historical fact with wild-ass idiotic personal opinion.
> ...


Great. Now you think someone might be interested in your opinion of Smith's opinion which was clearly labeled as such: 
*BY WILLIAM S. SMITH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/20/18 07:00 AM EDT 102
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL*

If you wanted to discuss historical fact you would actually present some but you don't and simply deny and ignore any that are presented. You are here to peddle propaganda and conspiracy theories.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Iraq failed to abide by the cease fire agreement although given chance after chance to do so over a ten year period and then ignored a UN ultimatum.



Why did you lie? SH did not ignore the UNSC Resolution 1441 ultimatum to cooperate. That’s an outright bold faced lie. Why should anyone believe anything you put out there about Iraq?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq failed to abide by the cease fire agreement although given chance after chance to do so over a ten year period and then ignored a UN ultimatum.
> ...


Prove it.


----------



## surada (Jul 17, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



The adoption of Resolution 1441 and Iraq’s subsequent decision to admit UN inspectors provided an opportunity to resolve reasonable concerns about Iraq’s suspected WMD programs. It now is known that Hussein ordered his military to comply with the inspections.
Looking Back: Iraq: Disarmament Without Resolution | Arms ...
www.armscontrol.org/act/2013-01/looking-back-iraq-disarmament-without-resolution


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Prove it.




There were three months of inspections with cooperation from SH until W made them stop so he could drop bombs and invade. 

You wrote that SH ignored the UN ultimatum. You lied. 

And on National TV - I saw it. Didn’t you? It is part of history. Its December 2002 - the first month of inspections: 

SECRETARY POWELL:  They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues

SECRETARY POWELL:  We've never said that war is inevitable.  The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution.  resolution? 






						Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos
					






					2001-2009.state.gov


----------



## Correll (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > now contrast that to a time when the question was, war with a WHITE and/or CHRISTIAN nation,
> ...




To claim that we have a lower standard for proof against a certain group, you are making a claim about it relative to other groups. 


If you can't support your claim, then you should not be making your claim. 


Accusing a group of being "bloodthirsty" and "wacist" is a pretty serious charge, in today's culture. You should not make such accusations without being sure, and/or having firm proof.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> ccusing a group of being "bloodthirsty" and "wacist" is a pretty serious charge, in today's culture.



When you continue to support a past war of aggression that was started in response to no threat when 200 UN inspectors were disarming Iraq peacefully knowing half a million Iraqi died - You are a blood thirsty warmonger.


----------



## Correll (Jul 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > ccusing a group of being "bloodthirsty" and "wacist" is a pretty serious charge, in today's culture.
> ...




Don't go wondering into the weeds here. 

You've finally revealed a previously unstated premise, that sort of explains some of the shit you've been saying for a long time now, 


specifically your assumption that "White" "Christians" who supported President Bush and later President Trump have a lower standard of proof for war, with Muslims.


You have refused to even try to support this assumption. You are standing by it, but you refuse to even try to support it.


It would be very difficult to prove, even if it were true, as wars are so complex and most White and/or Christian nations are fairly friendly to the US, at this time.


You could go back to WWI or WWII, or even the Cold War, but those were a long time ago, and it would be debatable if it would be fair to compare teh population of today with the population of 80 or longer, years ago.


If you can't support an assumption at all, then using it in a debate and insulting people over it, is not defensible.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

This was an appropriate standard for not supporting W’s intention to start a war in Iraq 

( Church of God in Christ
In a Jan. 23 letter to President Bush, Church of God in Christ Presiding Bishop Gilbert E. Patterson and the denomination’s General Board expressed concern for the military — noting its significant numbers of ethnic minorities — and Iraqi civilians. They called for moral principles to be involved in determining the necessity for war. “Failure to satisfy these criteria renders the war aims, strategies and tactics, at a minimum, morally suspect and perhaps morally unacceptable in the eyes of the church universal and under the gaze of a just and holy God,” they wrote. ) 

Your standard is so low it dropped off the chart.




Correll said:


> specifically your assumption that "White" "Christians" who supported President Bush and later President Trump have a lower standard of proof for war, with Muslims.



The right wing white evangelical Christians who supported the war - 8 out of 10 or so - certainly have a lower standard to support war and cause  hundreds of thousands of Muslim deaths than the religious people cited below who demanded the highest standard be held “exhausting all peaceful means” before STARTING a FUCKING war. 

I’m no anti/Christian bigot - I respect and applaud every single Christian with a high moral standard and opposition to our government STARTING a fucking war that dud not need to be started by a supposedly moral Nation of Christians and non-Christians  an no religion at all. 



Religious Groups Issue Statements on War with Iraq Compiled by Religion News Service, March 19, 2003









						Religious Groups Issue Statements on War with Iraq
					

Compiled by Religion News Service, March 19, 2003 African Methodist Episcopal Church Bishop Adam J. Richardson, president of the Council of Bishops of the




					www.pewforum.org
				




African Methodist Episcopal Church
Bishop Adam J. Richardson, president of the Council of Bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, said in a March 12 interview that he was troubled by the support of possible war by some in Christianity’s conservative wing. “I think that, from my perspective the right-wing faction of Christianity is doing Christ a disservice by attempting to back their jaundiced views with Scripture, trivializing the Bible in public view and making a mockery of the best traditions of biblical scholarship.” He added his thoughts about the military: “I say emphatically that I am not against the military nor military personnel. I am an American. My passport says so. But I think the leadership is wrong. I’m praying for him (President Bush) and … the people of the Middle East.”

American Baptist Churches USA
The General Board of American Baptist Churches USA, meeting in November, issued a statement urging efforts toward peace and prayer for the United Nations, the Iraqi people, military personnel and others affected by the crisis. “Let us pray for the United Nations that it may continue to be a voice, a forum and instrument of peace in these days of terror and the prospect of war. We recommend that President Bush and Secretary of State Powell continue their efforts to work through the United Nations to resolve the issue of Iraqi disarmament through inspections and diplomacy,” the statement reads.

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
The church’s Common Global Ministries Board, a joint venture with the United Church of Christ, said in a Feb. 10 statement: “God continues to speak to us a word of peace. Our churches believe that the church is called to participate in God’s message of reconciliation with all of creation. This calling is distinct from the pull of the world, but not removed from it. We are taught by Jesus, the Christ, that peace, harmony and justice are God’s vision for humanity.”

Church of England
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, in a joint Feb. 20 statement with Catholic Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, reiterated his opposition to war. “The events of recent days show that doubts still persist about the moral legitimacy as well as the unpredictable humanitarian consequences of a war with Iraq.”

Church of God in Christ
In a Jan. 23 letter to President Bush, Church of God in Christ Presiding Bishop Gilbert E. Patterson and the denomination’s General Board expressed concern for the military — noting its significant numbers of ethnic minorities — and Iraqi civilians. They called for moral principles to be involved in determining the necessity for war. “Failure to satisfy these criteria renders the war aims, strategies and tactics, at a minimum, morally suspect and perhaps morally unacceptable in the eyes of the church universal and under the gaze of a just and holy God,” they wrote.

Conference of Major Superiors of Men (Catholic men’s religious orders)
In a joint letter with other group to U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Jim Nicholson, the men’s orders flatly opposed the war. “There remain many avenues of peaceful, diplomatic alternatives that have not been explored. The international community does not support a planned war. A clear and imminent threat has not been proven.”

Conservative Judaism
Rabbi Jerome Epstein, head of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, said all Jews hope for peace, “history has also taught us that, at times, those who seek peace must fight for peace. Therefore, we hope that Iraq will use this period of time to comply with the world call for elimination of terrorism. If not, the responsibility of nations and the world to eliminate terrorism through whatever means necessary would be a tragic outcome.”

Council on American-Islamic Relations
One of the country’s most visible Muslim groups said war against Iraq would kill innocent civilians and destabilize the region. “Any American invasion and occupation of Iraq will fuel anti-American sentiment and would thereby harm our nation’s image and interests in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world.”

Eastern Orthodox Bishops
The Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas urged “all leaders of governments to utilize every means available to seek a peaceful resolution to the present challenge to the security and happiness of all humankind, poses by the forces of terror and evil that threaten not only the civilized world, but the very survival of human existence” in a Feb. 11 statement.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson has called for prayer. “As weapons inspectors continue their work, the United Nations debates next steps, the Iraqi people suffer and our government moves closer to war, we must not abdicate our responsibility to both pray for peace and to engage in public conversation regarding what is a just response that might lead to peace,” he wrote in a Feb. 13 letter to church leaders.

Episcopal Church
Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, who has been critical of President Bush’s war rhetoric, said on Jan. 30 that President Bush needs to “exhaust all diplomatic and multilateral initiatives as the alternatives to waging war” and to “act only in concert with the United Nations Security Council.”

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
In a March 3 statement on peace, the Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod said: “Our president has been entrusted with the sword. He may have to use it. We pray for God’s wisdom to guide him in the execution of his duty, that peace may prevail for us and for all people.”

Lutheran World Federation
The LWF’s executive committee, in a March 15 statement, denounced the Bush Administration for seeking war without United Nations approval. “The `just war’ criteria … were designed to constrain – not justify – the resort to war. Indeed, they stand in clear opposition to a preemptive war for the purpose of `regime change.'”

Mennonite Church USA
The church’s executive board, in a Jan. 15 letter to President Bush, said “the victory this country needs, Mr. President, is the victory of peace, of a stable economy both here and in Iraq, of a democratic government that listens to the majority of its citizens who currently do not support war against Iraq.”

Metropolitan Communities Churches
On Jan. 27, the church’s board of elders said that “…war will only increase unrest and suffering in the world, deepen the distrust that already divides America and Britain from Iraq and its allies, and divert international attention … from world poverty, a rapidly deteriorating ecological structure and oppression of too many of the world’s peoples.”

Muslim American Society
The Muslim American Society issued a March 10 statement, arguing that a war on Iraq would not be a “just war,” would complicate the long-term foreign policy goals of our nation and could prompt increased terrorist attacks against America. “Therefore, based upon our Islamic religious beliefs and concern for our nation’s prosperity and security and the innocent potential Iraqi victims, we call on our government and all peace-loving people and nations to do everything in their power to avoid war, and resolve all pending issues through peaceful means,” the statement reads.

National Association of Evangelicals
Members of the National Association of Evangelicals, meeting on March 6, affirmed a call to prayer issued Feb. 24 by the World Evangelical Alliance. “We believe that war or violence is almost always the worst solution for resolving conflict. Insofar as it is possible, all paths to peace should be explored and all possible means should be used for resolving any conflict,” the WEA statement said.

National Baptist Convention, USA
During its mid-winter board meeting, leaders of the National Baptist Convention, USA, adopted a resolution expressing opposition to a possible war with Iraq. “The president, officers, board of directors, auxiliaries, boards and commissions of NBCUSA, Inc. firmly believe that non-violent social change and international peacemaking are the most desired methods to address any and all infractions of Iraq against the United Nations Resolutions passed relative to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq’s possession,” the resolution reads.

National Council of Churches
The NCC has sponsored anti-war delegations to Iraq, England, Germany, Italy, France and Russia, and is a sponsor of the “Win Without War” coalition. After the Feb. 5 meeting with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, an NCC statement said “we deplore the fact that the most powerful nations of this world regard war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy,” and called a U.S.-led war “an inappropriate means to achieve disarmament of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.”

Orthodox Judaism
Rabbi Tzvi Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, said he supports President Bush in this “just war” against Iraq. “We pray for a peaceful solution, but if the president and his advisers, who are the experts, determine that military action is required to eradicate this evil … (the Orthodox Union stands by him) 100 percent.”

Pope John Paul II
In a Jan. 13 address to diplomats, the pope said, “No to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences.”

Presbyterian Church (USA)
In a Dec. 6, 2002, letter to President Bush, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick urged caution. “We urge you to do everything in your power to encourage the United Nations inspection process. It is imperative for all that this be a successful effort.”

Progressive National Baptist Convention
In a resolution passed in January, the Progressive National Baptist Convention said: “The Progressive National Baptist Convention calls on President George Bush, the Congress and the United Nations to seek peace and justice through diplomatic means in Iraq just as this administration is seeking better relations with North Korea through diplomacy and not preemptive strikes.”

Reform Judaism
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, said on Jan. 29, “We would prefer that this crisis be resolved by peaceful means, and if military action is necessary, we believe that multi-lateral action would be far preferable to unilateral action. Although we urge the President to pursue all diplomatic means with urgency and resolve, we know that the time for such efforts is limited.”

Southern Baptist Convention
Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, has spoken in favor of the potential war with Iraq. In a statement issued after Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Feb. 5 address to the United Nations Security Council, Land said: “The case for using force to bring about disarmament and regime change in Iraq was clearly and convincingly made for anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. Our choice is to pay less now and deal with this problem or we can pay a lot more later and deal with a nuclear-armed Saddam.”

Unitarian Universalist Association
UUA President William Sinkford has said he opposes the war and has asked for prayers for peace. In a pastoral letter last September, he said “The question in this difficult discussion must be more than simply, `Do we go to war?’ Raw power cannot heal those wounds hidden in the human heart that lead us to conflict.”

United Church of Christ
In a Feb. 22 statement, regional church leaders urged more time for United Nations inspections. “The recourse to war, according to our Christian tradition, is an admission of human failure. By such action, we admit our lack of commitment to use other means to resolve human conflict. It is a resounding ‘no’ to God’s eternal ‘yes’ to humanity.”

United Methodist Church
Bishop Sharon Brown Christopher of southern Illinois, president of the Council of Bishops, wrote to President Bush on Feb. 6, saying that “we pray that every possible means to prevent war will be pursued in the coming days. This is not a moment for haste but rather for deep thoughtfulness and prayer. It is a moment to reflect upon the well-spoken concerns of our allies around the world. The welfare of our human family depends on it.”

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
The bishops’ president, Wilton Gregory, said on Feb. 26 that the bishops have not changed their minds since they spoke out against war last November. “To permit preemptive or preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening or hostile regimes would create deeply troubling moral and legal precedents. Based on the facts that are known, it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq.”

World Council of Churches
The WCC executive committee, in a Feb. 21 statement, said “war against Iraq would be immoral, unwise and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter.” The WCC also lambasted “the fact that the most powerful nations of this world again regard war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> You've finally revealed a previously unstated premise, that sort of explains some of the shit you've been saying for a long time now, specifically your assumption that "White" "Christians" who supported President Bush and later President Trump have a lower standard of proof for war, with Muslims.




Is your standard to support a “preemptive war of choice for the purpose of `regime change’ in a Muslim nation without United Nations support and approval higher or lower than the following: 




NotfooledbyW said:


> Lutheran World Federation The LWF’s executive committee, in a March 15 statement, denounced the Bush Administration for seeking war without United Nations approval. “The `just war’ criteria … were designed to constrain – not justify – the resort to war. Indeed, they stand in clear opposition to a preemptive war for the purpose of `regime change.'”



My mom was a Lutheran. I’m no bigot. Half a million Iraqis are not killed if W had only Listened to all the good intelligent and rational multicultural Christians like most Lutherans and Most Catholics. 


(United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
The bishops’ president, Wilton Gregory, said on Feb. 26 that the bishops have not changed their minds since they spoke out against war last November. “To permit preemptive or preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening or hostile regimes would create deeply troubling moral and legal precedents. Based on the facts that are known, it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq.”)


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> This was an appropriate standard for not supporting W’s intention to start a war in Iraq
> 
> ( Church of God in Christ
> In a Jan. 23 letter to President Bush, Church of God in Christ Presiding Bishop Gilbert E. Patterson and the denomination’s General Board expressed concern for the military — noting its significant numbers of ethnic minorities — and Iraqi civilians. They called for moral principles to be involved in determining the necessity for war. “Failure to satisfy these criteria renders the war aims, strategies and tactics, at a minimum, morally suspect and perhaps morally unacceptable in the eyes of the church universal and under the gaze of a just and holy God,” they wrote. )
> ...


More off topic opinion that had nothing to do with the war. Post some verifiable fact to back your bullspit opinions or STFU. All you're now doing is making a fool of yourself. Downright sick (and not in a good way) Stop being a clown. Man up and stop with the whining.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> More off topic opinion that had nothing to do with the war.



the invaders were largely Christian with all the modern technology and weaponry that warmongers could desire. 

the invaded were Muslims with not much to fight with.

this thread asks the question did you support the war.

why is it off topic to question why only one certain type of Christian supported the war when most Christians did not? 









						Religious Groups Issue Statements on War with Iraq
					

Compiled by Religion News Service, March 19, 2003 African Methodist Episcopal Church Bishop Adam J. Richardson, president of the Council of Bishops of the




					www.pewforum.org
				




American Baptist Churches USA
The General Board of American Baptist Churches USA, meeting in November, issued a statement urging efforts toward peace and prayer for the United Nations, the Iraqi people, military personnel and others affected by the crisis. “Let us pray for the United Nations that it may continue to be a voice, a forum and instrument of peace in these days of terror and the prospect of war. We recommend that President Bush and Secretary of State Powell continue their efforts to work through the United Nations to resolve the issue of Iraqi disarmament through inspections and diplomacy,” the statement reads. 




The General Board of American Baptist Churches USA, were right and if heard would have prevented half a Million Iraqis from being killed in an unnecessary war.

They urged W to “continue their efforts to work through the United Nations to resolve the issue of Iraqi disarmament through inspections and diplomacy,”

Wise people - those Christians. Why must you ban them from this discussion. Are you wiser and more moral than them somehow?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> specifically your assumption that "White" "Christians" who supported President Bush and later President Trump have a lower standard of proof for war, with Muslims.



FYI  you are losing culture war Christians by the churchbusloads since the disastrous Christian nation invasion of Iraq. And yes I am very pleased to hear that.


*** The extent to which the number of white evangelicals have declined in the United States has been laid bare in a new report by the Public Religion Research Institute's 2020 Census on American Religion.









						'Jesus was definitely a Republican': Why some younger evangelicals are leaving the faith
					

The extent to which the number of white evangelicals have declined in the United States has been laid bare in a new report by the Public Religion Research Institute's 2020 Census on American Religion.The institute's study found that only 14% of Americans identify as white evangelical today. This...




					www.rawstory.com
				




The institute's study found that only 14% of Americans identify as white evangelical today. This is a drastic decline since 2006, when America's religious landscape was composed of 23% white evangelicals, as the report notes.***


And I personally believe that it’s true that white nationalist evangelical culture war Christians’ dogmatic belief that America was created by God to follow Jesus had a huge role in understanding why that particular group of Christians wholeheartedly supported the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003.


----------



## Correll (Jul 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> This was an appropriate standard for not supporting W’s intention to start a war in Iraq
> 
> ( Church of God in Christ
> In a Jan. 23 letter to President Bush, Church of God in Christ Presiding Bishop Gilbert E. Patterson and the denomination’s General Board expressed concern for the military — noting its significant numbers of ethnic minorities — and Iraqi civilians. They called for moral principles to be involved in determining the necessity for war. “Failure to satisfy these criteria renders the war aims, strategies and tactics, at a minimum, morally suspect and perhaps morally unacceptable in the eyes of the church universal and under the gaze of a just and holy God,” they wrote. )
> ...



That was a stupid exercise in cutting and pasting. All you had to say to make THAT point was to state the plenty of religious groups had a higher standard, and if you wanted,  you could have posted the link. 


BUT, the point you are trying to support, is NOT, that some religious groups had a higher standard of proof for war, 


but that the group you were discussing, the "war supporting group" had a LOWER standard for war *when it was against Muslims. *


posting all that irrelevant crap, was obviously an attempt to "dazzle with bullshit" because you can not actually support your assumption. 


And you can't admit that, because your premise is the entire point of this exercise, ie to smear your partisan and/or ideological enemies.


You want to "win" your arguments by insisting that the people that disagree with you are "Bad people" or "wacist" rather than win your arguments by supporting them with logic or evidence.


Based on an assumption that you cannot support. At all.


----------



## Correll (Jul 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You've finally revealed a previously unstated premise, that sort of explains some of the shit you've been saying for a long time now, specifically your assumption that "White" "Christians" who supported President Bush and later President Trump have a lower standard of proof for war, with Muslims.
> ...





Irrelevant drivel.


----------



## Correll (Jul 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > specifically your assumption that "White" "Christians" who supported President Bush and later President Trump have a lower standard of proof for war, with Muslims.
> ...




Let's see, instead of supporting your premise, we have 

1. revealing a motive to smear your enemies.

2. logical fallacy of appeal to popularity

3. and unsupported assertions. 

4. and you keep saying white a lot. When you've posted a lot of stuff showing that "white", or indeed, Christian did not define the dividing lines in this issue. 


ANd most importantly, 


5. DOING NOTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSUMPTION. BECUASE YOU CAN'T.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> but that the group you were discussing, the "war supporting group" had a LOWER standard for war *when it was against Muslims. *



That group of warmongering white evangelical nationalistic hard right Republican voting Christians had a lower standard when compared to all other groups including all other Christian groups. That group is the most anti-Muslim of all other groups and you think anti-Muslim bIgotry in that group had nothing to do with their being the most supportive of W’s dumb invasion knowing thousands of innocent Muslims would die. 


You are totally lost in any discussion involving reality. You are intellectually under developed. Did you get vaccinated yet or are you hoping to be the incubator for a new aggressive COVID variant that beats the vaccinated and starts a whole new epidemic and shuts everything down again?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Irrelevant drivel



We can always tell when you are stuck. 

The word “irrelevant” pops up when you are. Just like the little red thermometer in a Butterball Turkey.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 18, 2021)

*why is it off topic to question why only one certain type of Christian supported the war when most Christians did not?*
Obviously because your statement is grossly untrue. There were plenty of Muslims on both (all) sides of that war which began when one Muslim Nation invaded another. It wasn't Christians wandering around blowing themselves up so they could kill Muslim civilians. The Civil wars in Iraq were predominately Muslim vs Muslim and was it not Muslim Kurds that Saddam used WMD against? The vast majority of Americans were in favor of the war regardless of their religion and rightly so.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Obviously because your statement is grossly untrue.



What is grossly untrue about this?


why is it off topic to question why only one certain type of Christian supported the war when most Christians did not?


Are you saying most Christians support killing half a million Muslims to start searching for WMD in Iraq in N
March 2003?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> There were plenty of Muslims on both (all) sides of that war which began when one Muslim Nation invaded another.




There was no Muslim nation invading another Muslim nation in March 2003 to start the Iraq War. You are obviously deranged. It was W the president of the USA that invaded Iraq in 2003. Most Christians in the world do not support it or condone it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The vast majority of Americans were in favor of the war regardless of their religion and rightly so.




based on what? 6 out of 10 Americans polled before the war wanted W to give inspectors more time. What polls have you got?



War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry
BY JAIME HOLGUIN
OCTOBER 6, 2002 / 5:38 PM / CBS
Americans generally support military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and while most think war is inevitable, there is no rush to begin it, according to a CBS News/New York Times Poll released Sunday.










						War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry
					

<b>CBS News Poll</b> Shows People Are In No Rush To Begin War




					www.cbsnews.com
				





The public overwhelmingly wants to get the United Nations' weapons inspectors back into Iraq and allied support before taking any military action. Americans also want a congressional vote before acting - and think members of Congress should be asking more questions about the implications of war with Iraq.

Americans are concerned about the wider implications of war with Iraq. They believe such a war will result in a long and costly military involvement; they believe it will lead to a wider war in the Middle East with other Arab nations and Israel; and that it could further undermine the U.S. economy.


Americans are also cool to the doctrine of pre-emption. They believe countries should not be able to attack each other unless attacked first - and less than half of Americans think the U.S., in particular, has the right to make pre-emptive strikes against nations it thinks may attack in the future.

Military Action and Weapons Inspections
More people now than just two weeks ago favor giving the United Nations more time to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
U.S. SHOULD:

Now: 
Take military action soon 30%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 63%

2 Weeks Ago: 
Take military action soon 36%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 57%

Support for getting U.S. allies on board before any military action has remained constant. 


Asked whether Iraq presents such a clear danger that the U.S. needs to act now, even without allied backing, or whether the U.S. needs to wait for such backing, Americans expressed the desire to wait.
U.S. SHOULD:
Now  Act now 29% 
Wait for allies 65%


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What is grossly untrue about this?
> 
> 
> why is it off topic to question why only one certain type of Christian supported the war when most Christians did not?
> ...





NotfooledbyW said:


> What is grossly untrue about this?
> 
> 
> why is it off topic to question why only one certain type of Christian supported the war when most Christians did not?
> ...





NotfooledbyW said:


> What is grossly untrue about this?
> 
> 
> why is it off topic to question why only one certain type of Christian supported the war when most Christians did not?
> ...


Your claims are grossly untrue because they are lies which you cannot prove or support.
Are you trying to claim Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Fox and the intermittent engagements in the no-fly zone were NOT warfare?
Are you trying to claim that the goal of the first invasion was NOT a response to the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait and the purpose of the second invasion was NOT to remove Saddam from power? Are you trying to claim only Christians killed Iraqis when that is clearly untrue? Where is your sympathy for the people of other Nations and faiths who died to free Iraqis from the oppression of an evil tyrant? Where is your appreciation for the coalition using pression guided missiles and bombs to take out targets with a minimum of unintentional  civilian casualties when it would have been so much easier, cheaper and safer to simply wipe the cities or Nation off the map? You are simply trying to reinvent history to fit your agenda.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> based on what? 6 out of 10 Americans polled before the war wanted W to give inspectors more time. What polls have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One more batch of irrelevant opinion signifying nothing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> One more batch of irrelevant opinion signifying nothing.



What, you don’t have a poll? At least I can cite all kinds of polls from 2003 prior to the start of the Iraq War. 

You got caught lying again. You have nothing to back up your claim that most Americans supported W’s preemptive war of aggression on Iraq that he launched mid-March 2003. 

Your only argument is that polling from the  lead up to invasion is not relevant. That is so precious.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Your claims are grossly untrue because they are lies which you cannot prove or support.
> Are you trying to claim Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Fox and the intermittent engagements in the no-fly zone were NOT warfare?



Sure it was warfare. When Operation Desert Storm ended with a ceasefire It was what’s called limited warfare until March 19 2003. 

What we are talking about here is W’s decision to invade and put American boots on the ground. I had absolutely no problem with limited strikes to protect Kurds and Shiites. Or strikes to hit Military targets if a real threat exist.,

The thing is when W Started the ground war to find WMD it is a historical fact that SH was not shooting or threatening anybody. And even W was saying all along that SH could stay in power if he was peacefully disarmed. Iraq was being peacefully disarmed when W started the Iraq War. The full scale war with Americans on the ground shooting and being shot. Why cant reality penetrate your thick warmongering skull. It’s sad really.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Are you trying to claim only Christians killed Iraqis when that is clearly untrue?




No, you are an idiot for asking that. W Disbanded the army and police and did not have much in place to replace them. Chaos and sectarian violence flared up within an insurgency against the Christian invaders. So half a million Iraqis died because W Invaded Iraq for no good reason.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Are you trying to claim that the goal of the first invasion was NOT a response to the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait



Why would I claim that? Thats exactly the mission of The Persian Gulf War. W’s good father gathered a huge coalition under UN authority and drove SH out.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What, you don’t have a poll? At least I can cite all kinds of polls from 2003 prior to the start of the Iraq War.
> 
> You got caught lying again. You have nothing to back up your claim that most Americans supported W’s preemptive war of aggression on Iraq that he launched mid-March 2003.
> 
> Your only argument is that polling from the  lead up to invasion is not relevant. That is so precious.





NotfooledbyW said:


> What, you don’t have a poll? At least I can cite all kinds of polls from 2003 prior to the start of the Iraq War.
> 
> You got caught lying again. You have nothing to back up your claim that most Americans supported W’s preemptive war of aggression on Iraq that he launched mid-March 2003.
> 
> Your only argument is that polling from the  lead up to invasion is not relevant. That is so precious.


Relevance matters. Unrelated poles don't. What possible difference do the views of some Christians as opposed to the views of anyone else matter as pertains to the war? 
The conclusion you try to jump to is simply idiotic unsupported and unproven. You have already admitted that the war started with the invasion of Kuwait and continued through the second invasion. "Limited war" is still war. Saddam might have disarmed and maybe he was also ready to allow acceptable inspections to take place but after 10 years of obstruction and lies no one was willing to believe him. The UN did in fact give him an ultimatum and date by which he was to allow inspections that he ignored until we set plans in motion to remove him which was when he started one more con that *this* time he was actually going to be a good boy and honor the promises he made a decade before. Far too little far too late. Iraqis should be grateful we came and freed them from a tyrant. 
Muslim on Muslim insurgency was going in Iraq long before we ever got involved. Saddam himself was a terrorist who slaughtered Iraqis that he thought might oppose him. which is exactly how he became dictator.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 18, 2021)

surada said:


> The adoption of Resolution 1441 and Iraq’s subsequent decision to admit UN inspectors provided an opportunity to resolve reasonable concerns about Iraq’s suspected WMD programs. It now is known that Hussein ordered his military to comply with the inspections.
> Looking Back: Iraq: Disarmament Without Resolution | Arms ...
> www.armscontrol.org/act/2013-01/looking-back-iraq-disarmament-without-resolution


Far too little far too late.


NotfooledbyW said:


> No, you are an idiot for asking that. W Disbanded the army and police and did not have much in place to replace them. Chaos and sectarian violence flared up within an insurgency against the Christian invaders. So half a million Iraqis died because W Invaded Iraq for no good reason.


So you think America was somehow responsible for the violence and chaos caused by local Muslims? Of course the military and police were disbanded. They were in fact the enemy that had just been shooting at us. We should instead have been giving them big ole sloppy kisses? Did the Saddam government allow the Kuwait military and police remain during their occupation? Had it been my call far less of the Iraqi military would have been allowed to survive Desert Storm. I predicted at the time we were going to have to go back later and fight them again. And it was so. The military under Saddam were serious assholes who deserved what they got and they won't be getting any sympathy from me. If we had killed more of them there would have been less problem with the chaotic violent insurgencies and we possibly could have saved more Iraqi civilian lives from their alleged Muslim brothers. Hint: it wasn't Mormons, Catholics, or Jews blowing themselves (and everybody else)up in crowded market places.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Are you trying to claim that the





9thIDdoc said:


> purpose of the second invasion was NOT to remove Saddam from power?



The purpose of the peace loving world community prior to the Invasion into Iraq in March 2003 was to enforce unspecified consequences in UNSC Resolution 1441 only if SH didn’t cooperate in order to bring about the resumption of inspections.

The fact is however that SH was cooperating and inspections were ongoing. So using military force to bring a regime change was not necessary or wise..

And so the tragedy is, that W decided to end the peaceful process of inspections by invading Iraq, like Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. W invaded Iraq (presumably to disarm it) in order to take control of the country and the black gold lying under the surface based on a supposed hunch that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors. That hunch turned out to be wrong and was therefore a lie. A lie that even DJT came to recognize. 

So yes the “purpose” of the war was to remove the dictatorship from power in Iraq  based on a lie. The purpose was clear but the reason was wrong and the actual intent of why W started a war that caused half a million Muslim deaths is still under investigation. Seizing control of Iraq’s oil supply is one of the top ‘real’ purposes of the war because to do that Sh Had to be removed. He could not be disarmed peaceably in MARCH 2003 because if he was disarmed but not removed the UK and US oil industries were on the sidelines watching as the Russians and French already had OIL contracts with SH for when the sanctions on IRAQ were lifted.




9thIDdoc said:


> They were in fact the enemy that had just been shooting at us.


There was not one single Iraqi shooting at us during the above mentioned peaceful process of inspections  to disarm IRAQ of WMD from November 2002 Through March 19 2003. You are a liar like your fellow twenty year warmonger Correll who said SH was poking the bear during peaceful inspections. The both of you just can’t quit lying about Iraq cant you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Relevance matters. Unrelated poles don't.



What basis do you have to support your bold declaration :



9thIDdoc said:


> The vast majority of Americans were in favor of the war



How did you arrive at such a bold conclusion if not through relevant public opinion  polling? 

Please explain this one: political scientists would surely have an interest in your scientific methods or unique mystical mind reading powers.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc is unhinged from reality. This thread is about whether or not you support the 2003 Iraq War that was started by W on March 19 2003  with the first and only ground invasion by the US military. 



9thIDdoc said:


> So you think America was somehow responsible for the violence and chaos caused by local Muslims? Of course the military and police were disbanded. They were in fact the enemy that had just been shooting at us. We should instead have been giving them big ole sloppy kisses? Did the Saddam government allow the Kuwait military and police remain during their occupation? Had it been my call far less of the Iraqi military would have been allowed to survive Desert Storm. I predicted at the time we were going to have to go back later and fight them again. And it was so. The military under Saddam were serious assholes who deserved what they got and they won't be getting any sympathy from me. If we had killed more of them there would have been less problem with the chaotic violent insurgencies and we possibly could have saved more Iraqi civilian lives from their alleged Muslim brothers. Hint: it wasn't Mormons, Catholics, or Jews blowing themselves (and everybody else)up in crowded market places.



I fully supported the UNITED NATIONS broad Coalition put together by HW and the full scale war to liberate Kuwait. 

That full scale war ended successfully in 1991 and Iraq never invaded another country again.

So can you 9thIDdoc join the discussion why you support Little Dubby’s unprepared and unprovoked ground invasion of IRAQ In MARCH 2003?


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Far too little far too late.
> 
> So you think America was somehow responsible for the violence and chaos caused by local Muslims? Of course the military and police were disbanded. They were in fact the enemy that had just been shooting at us. We should instead have been giving them big ole sloppy kisses? Did the Saddam government allow the Kuwait military and police remain during their occupation? Had it been my call far less of the Iraqi military would have been allowed to survive Desert Storm. I predicted at the time we were going to have to go back later and fight them again. And it was so. The military under Saddam were serious assholes who deserved what they got and they won't be getting any sympathy from me. If we had killed more of them there would have been less problem with the chaotic violent insurgencies and we possibly could have saved more Iraqi civilian lives from their alleged Muslim brothers. Hint: it wasn't Mormons, Catholics, or Jews blowing themselves (and everybody else)up in crowded market places.



You're quite the keyboard warrior with your 8th grade education on the Middle East and Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> So you think America was somehow responsible for the violence and chaos caused by local Muslims?



AFTER MARCH 19 2003 W is responsible for keeping the same level of peace in all of IRAQ that was in Iraq on March 17  2003.


It was explained to W before he broke Iraq. 

***  Colin Powell popularized this doctrine in the foreign policy context. The then-secretary of state warned George W. Bush about the consequences of invading Iraq: "You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all." 





__





						Redirect Notice
					





					www.google.com
				




As Bob Woodward recounted in a 2004 book, “Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.”***


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Saddam might have disarmed and maybe he was also ready to allow acceptable inspections to take place but after 10 years of obstruction and lies no one was willing to believe him.



It was not a matter of believing SH would allow acceptable inspections to take place - he did it.   That was a very clear objective reality that anyone who was not blind could see in the first few months of 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The UN did in fact give him an ultimatum and date by which he was to allow inspections that he ignored




you are a liar. SH was willing to allow inspectors before 1441 was passed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> . I predicted at the time we were going to have to go back later and fight them again.



We never had to go back later and fight then. Iraq was being disarmed peacefully. It was a stupid decision to go back in when inspectors required a few more months to finish. They would have found that Iraq was not hiding WMD without actually killing anybody.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What, you don’t have a poll? At least I can cite all kinds of polls from 2003 prior to the start of the Iraq War.
> 
> You got caught lying again. You have nothing to back up your claim that most Americans supported W’s preemptive war of aggression on Iraq that he launched mid-March 2003.
> 
> Your only argument is that polling from the  lead up to invasion is not relevant. That is so precious.


The title of the thread is:
*Did you Support War in Iraq??*​My answer is/was Yes! And I have repeated that answer several times already. The question doesn't ask for my opinion about anyone else's opinion and my statement was truth and you have no cause to claim otherwise. The question does not ask about any particular part of the war in Iraq and the claim that it started in mid-March 2003 or that it was a war of aggression or that it was conducted by any one particular President over any one particular issue is simply untrue. As I have plainly also stated several times. You don't listen well if at all. If you don't want an honest answer don't ask a question.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The purpose of the peace loving world community prior to the Invasion into Iraq in March 2003 was to enforce unspecified consequences in UNSC Resolution 1441 only if SH didn’t cooperate in order to bring about the resumption of inspections.
> 
> The fact is however that SH was cooperating and inspections were ongoing. So using military force to bring a regime change was not necessary or wise..
> 
> ...


*The purpose of the peace loving world community prior to the Invasion into Iraq in March 2003 was to enforce unspecified consequences in UNSC Resolution 1441 only if SH didn’t cooperate in order to bring about the resumption of inspections.*
Untrue. The original purpose of invading Iraq was to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and the coalition was formed and led by the US; not the UN. 
The US led (not UN) coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 was for the express purpose of removing Saddam from power because of his repeated failure to abide by cease fires. 

*And so the tragedy is, that W decided to end the peaceful process of inspections by invading Iraq, like Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.*
The actual tragedy was caused by Saddam's invading Kuwait like Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.

*So yes the “purpose” of the war was to remove the dictatorship from power in Iraq  based on a lie.*
Your statement is the lie. History is clear on the matter. All you do is spew anti-American propaganda without proof or support.

*There was not one single Iraqi shooting at us during the above mentioned peaceful process of inspections  to disarm IRAQ of WMD from November 2002 Through March 19 2003.*
Even if that were true (and I neither know or care) it was a very small portion of the time we were involved in war with Saddam's Iraqi regime and during most of it the decision to remove Saddam had been made and plans to implement that were underway. It takes time to prepare for such a campaign.
Who is "us"? Do you claim to be an American?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> . The question does not ask about any particular part of the war in Iraq and the claim that it started in mid-March 2003 or that it was a war of aggression or that it was conducted by any one particular President over any one particular issue is simply untrue.




You are a liar or incredibly stupid. The following is referenced in the original posts 

***The wording of the question was unambiguous: "Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?"

Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.***

So which is it? stupid or lying?


This is in post #1


The Banker said:


> Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure.











						Republican attitudes on Iraq trip up GOP candidates
					

Was the Iraq war the right thing to do or the wrong thing? Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.




					www.msnbc.com


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> *The purpose of the peace loving world community prior to the Invasion into Iraq in March 2003 was to enforce unspecified consequences in UNSC Resolution 1441 only if SH didn’t cooperate in order to bring about the resumption of inspections.*
> Untrue. The original purpose of invading Iraq was to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and the coalition was formed and led by the US; not the UN.
> The US led (not UN) coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 was for the express purpose of removing Saddam from power because of his repeated failure to abide by cease fires.
> 
> ...



Papa Bush didn't invade Iraq.. He shooed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait and it wasn't much of a fight. Saddam's teenaged soldiers dropped their weapons and ran.

You  have never been to the Middle East, have you?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

surada said:


> You're quite the keyboard warrior with your 8th grade education on the Middle East and Iraq.


I was a warrior in fact with boots on the ground in Vietnam. And remained in the active USAR and was advised that orders were being cut for my participation in Operation Desert Shield. So I was definitely paying attention to world affairs during that time period. How about you? And I'll match my education my education with yours  any day.


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> I was a warrior in fact with boots on the ground in Vietnam. And remained in the active USAR and was advised that orders were being cut for my participation in Operation Desert Shield. So I was definitely paying attention to world affairs during that time period. How about you? And I'll match my education my education with yours  any day.



Did you know the point man for Desert Shield? Mike and I grew up together.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc Do you think DJT is talking about HW or W? 


The OP posted this. Don’t you read posts in a thread? 


The Banker said:


> “The worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country: going into the Middle East, by President Bush,” -Donald Trump.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

****The wording of the question was unambiguous: "Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?"*
What part of "Yes" are you having trouble understanding?

*Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.****
Do you really think that a poll conducted in 2015 says anything useful about public opinion in 2003? Does public opinion-even if your poll were accurate which I doubt-in 2015 say anything useful about *my* opinion which is what the question asked for?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

surada said:


> Did you know the point man for Desert Shield? Mike and I grew up together.


Mike who? Do you have any idea what a point man is? Desert Shield didn't have one'


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> What part of "Yes" are you having trouble understanding?



You’ve been lying for weeks now that in this thread “Going to War” to you is liberating Kuwait in 1991 which I supported. But in 2003 it was a ground invasion to take Baghdad. The UN inspectors were on the ground in IRAQ. And W’s public announced intelligence on reasons for starting a war sucked. So I opposed it.


Your “one war” defense of W’s huge mistake invasion in 2003 is a way to blame W’s mess on SH. But the truth is there was absolutely nothing going on in 2003 that forced W to invade other than an urge to control Iraq so as to control which companies get to divvy up oil production contracts and get first dibs. There was no military or terrorist threat coming from Iraq when W invaded.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 9thIDdoc Do you think DJT is talking about HW or W?
> 
> 
> The OP posted this. Don’t you read posts in a thread?


*9thIDdoc Do you think DJT is talking about HW or W?*
Don't know or care because that has nothing to do with the question the thread title asks.

*The OP posted this. Don’t you read posts in a thread?*
Sure do. Didn't you read the title of the thread?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You’ve been lying for weeks now that in this thread “Going to War” to you is liberating Kuwait in 1991 which I supported. But in 2003 it was a ground invasion to take Baghdad. The UN inspectors were on the ground in IRAQ. And W’s public announced intelligence on reasons for starting a war sucked. So I opposed it.
> 
> 
> Your “one war” defense of W’s huge mistake invasion in 2003 is a way to blame W’s mess on SH. But the truth is there was absolutely nothing going on in 2003 that forced W to invade other than an urge to control Iraq so as to control which companies get to divvy up oil production contracts and get first dibs. There was no military or terrorist threat coming from Iraq when W invaded.


The part that you seem determined to miss is that my opinion is that in the American President as leader of the coalition and the American people did exactly the right thing in 2003 and deserves credit-not blame-for what he did and how the invasion was carried out. It is also my humble opinion that you are a total idiot whose only goal is the spread of anti-American propaganda. Does that help to clear things up for you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The original purpose of invading Iraq was to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and the coalition was formed and led by the US; not the UN.



The original War in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait but it was not an invasion to control Iraq territory or topple the regime. There was no intention to do that. 

THE 2003 invasion was to topple the regime and seize control of the country to look for the WMD that W said was there. And set up a government that would be more friendly to US oil companies that would be more friendly than SH would have been. 


The war to liberate Kuwait ended on February 28 1991. The UN made it official on April 3. The war to liberate Kuwait was over. 

That ceasefire did not end because Iraq violated the agreement to destroy its WMD under UN supervision. The agreement did not stipulate that Iraq destroy its WMD under US supervision to end the ban on Iraq’s oil sales. That arrangement was between the UN and Iraq. SH’s violations of the WMD did not end the ceasefire agreement as you claim. 

***On February 28, U.S. President George Bush declared a cease-fire, and on April 3 the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 687, specifying conditions for a formal end to the conflict. According to the resolution, Bush’s cease-fire would become official, some sanctions would be lifted, but the ban on Iraqi oil sales would continue until Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction under U.N. supervision. On April 6, Iraq accepted the resolution, and on April 11 the Security Council declared it in effect.***


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The part that you seem determined to miss is that my opinion is that in the American President as leader of the coalition and the American people did exactly the right thing in 2003 and deserves credit-not blame-for what he did and how the invasion was carried out.



Opine all you like. Just stop lying about the historical facts in order to make your opinion accepted as if it was formed based upon sone kind if reality.

If your opinion is that Bush did the right thing in March 2003 then you would say that getting half a million Iraqis killed was the right thing and Bush deserves credit for that because if W did not do the right thing in 2003 none of them would have died in his right thing that was absolutely wrong about WMD.


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Mike who? Do you have any idea what a point man is? Desert Shield didn't have one'



Michael Sherman - Global Distraction Manager - PR ...


			https://www.linkedin.com/in/captmikeusn
		

Sherman escorted the first newsmen into Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on August 13, 1990, at the outset of Operation Desert Shield. He… A retired U.S. Navy Captain, Sherman is a 26-year Navy veteran.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Iraq invaded Kuwait. Killed pillaged and raped. Then refused to give back what it stole. It fully deserved the retribution it received.



What does that have to do with your support for W’s decision to invade Iraq instead of allowing inspectors figure out Iraq was not hiding any WMD from them. 

W’s invasion was responsible for half a million Iraqi deaths. Why do you support their deaths. They did not rape and pillage Kuwait and W did not invade Iraq to avenge the victims of that war.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The original War in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait but it was not an invasion to control Iraq territory or topple the regime. There was no intention to do that.
> 
> THE 2003 invasion was to topple the regime and seize control of the country to look for the WMD that W said was there. And set up a government that would be more friendly to US oil companies that would be more friendly than SH would have been.
> 
> ...


*The original War in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait but it was not an invasion to control Iraq territory or topple the regime. There was no intention to do that.*
I haven't said otherwise.

*THE 2003 invasion was to topple the regime and seize control of the country...*
This is true as I and history have stated.

* ...to look for the WMD that W said was there. And set up a government that would be more friendly to US oil companies that would be more friendly than SH would have been.*
This is merely your unsupported unproven opinion.

*That ceasefire did not end because Iraq violated the agreement to destroy its WMD under UN supervision*
It most certainly did among other reasons such as the rather important fact that there is no cease fire if the participants do not cease fire. The UN did not wage war; the US lead coalition did and declared the cease fire so it was up to the participants to honor it or face continued war which is exactly what happened. And long before 2003.
We plainly stated the reason for the 2nd invasion which also did not require UN approval. Iraq was obligated to prove removal of WMD to US standards and never did. Someone cares about your or the UN opinion on the matter? Certainly not I.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

surada said:


> Michael Sherman - Global Distraction Manager - PR ...
> 
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/captmikeusn
> ...


To my knowledge the only "point man" I've ever heard of was the man who traveled first (at the point) of a Marine or Army combat formation.
Desert shield was not a combat operation and your "Mike" (according to his linked bio) was a Navy public relations officer. Which is about as far from being a point man as you can get.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What does that have to do with your support for W’s decision to invade Iraq instead of allowing inspectors figure out Iraq was not hiding any WMD from them.
> 
> W’s invasion was responsible for half a million Iraqi deaths. Why do you support their deaths. They did not rape and pillage Kuwait and W did not invade Iraq to avenge the victims of that war.


*What does that have to do with your support for W’s decision to invade Iraq instead of allowing inspectors figure out Iraq was not hiding any WMD from them.*
Not a thing. Why do you ask? 

*W’s invasion was responsible for half a million Iraqi deaths. Why do you support their deaths. They did not rape and pillage Kuwait and W did not invade Iraq to avenge the victims of that war.*
That is your claim and I have repeatedly said that I consider it a lie. How hard is that to understand?


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> To my knowledge the only "point man" I've ever heard of was the man who traveled first (at the point) of a Marine or Army combat formation.
> Desert shield was not a combat operation and your "Mike" (according to his linked bio) was a Navy public relations officer. Which is about as far from being a point man as you can get.



I don't know what the military term is .. Mike was brought in early on because he knew Saudi Arabia and TAPLINE.. and the Arabs.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

surada said:


> I don't know what the military term is .. Mike was brought in early on because he knew Saudi Arabia and TAPLINE.. and the Arabs.


So what do you think that proves? What makes his opinion better than others? For that matter even Naval public relations officers have been known to spread disinformation.


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> So what do you think that proves? What makes his opinion better than others? For that matter even Naval public relations officers have been known to spread disinformation.



Mike had knowledge and experience.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

Do


surada said:


> Mike had knowledge and experience.


So does everybody else.


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Do
> 
> So does everybody else.



You don't know anything about Arabia or Tapline... or how to deal effectively with the Saudis. You have no respect for them.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

The subject isn't Arabia or tapline or how to deal effectively with the Saudis so how would that matter even if true? The subject is the Iraq war and I have considerable knowledge about that. The fact is we went there in part to protect Saudi Arabia and got slightly bloody doing so.


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The subject isn't Arabia or tapline or how to deal effectively with the Saudis so how would that matter even if true? The subject is the Iraq war and I have considerable knowledge about that. The fact is we went there in part to protect Saudi Arabia and got slightly bloody doing so.



Saddam was no threat to KSA. Saudi Arabia had forgiven Iraq's OPEC quota debt. ..Kuwait had NOT.

Cheney lied to the King.

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS


			Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS
		

Cheney: When King Fahd said that he was prepared to accept our proposition, I was pleased, obviously. That was something that was very important to achieve but, secondly, I also had a sense that ...


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The subject isn't Arabia or tapline or how to deal effectively with the Saudis so how would that matter even if true? The subject is the Iraq war and I have considerable knowledge about that. The fact is we went there in part to protect Saudi Arabia and got slightly bloody doing so.



Saddam was no threat to KSA. Saudi Arabia had forgiven Iraq's OPEC quota debt. ..Kuwait had NOT.

Cheney lied to the King.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

FACT: …… asked whether Saudi Arabia would allow more US troops to be placed on Saudi soil, the foreign minister replied, "under the present circumstances 

!!!!  with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq,!!!!!!

I do not think Saudi Arabia will join in".: Prince Saud Alfaysal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister in 2003.


LIE CONTRARY TO THE ABOVE FACT:


9thIDdoc said:


> The fact is we went there in part to protect Saudi Arabia and got slightly bloody doing so.



Not in 2003. You are such a liar.,

The Saudis were a huge part of the UN Authorized war to liberate Kuwait in 1991. You are a liar. You know nothing about The Iraq War 2003 - 2011 to find WMD. 


***  In an interview, Prince Saud Alfaysal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister when asked whether Saudi Arabia would allow more US troops to be placed on Saudi soil, the foreign minister replied, "under the present circumstances with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq, I do not think Saudi Arabia will join in".[40]









						Governmental positions on the Iraq War prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




 It was also eventually learned that a high-ranking Saudi prince had been at the White House on the day that the Iraq war began, and Bush administration officials told the prince to alert his government that the initial phase of the war had begun, hours before missiles first landed in Baghdad. Officially, Saudi Arabia wished to see Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime go, but feared the aftermath.[41] As the US invasion of Iraq became inevitable, the question of whether Saudi Arabia wanted the Baath regime replaced by a pro-Western government "pumping oil in greater quantities than Saudi Arabia" posed a dilemma for the Saudi government.[42] 

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia worried about the possibility of an Iraqi Shia pro-Iranian government installed at its doorstep, following the demise of Saddam's Sunni regime. On 4 November 2002, Faysal told CNN that Saudi Arabia would not allow US use of Saudi facilities to invade Iraq. Moreover, in the same month, during a televised address on Saudi television, Crown Prince Abdullah insisted that "our armed forces will not, under no circumstances, step one foot into Iraqi territory".***

Give us a break with the lies will ya. I’m tired if searching for the truth because you obviously cannot.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 19, 2021)

Everyone who pays taxes supported the war in Iraq.

The Billionaire Democrats? Maybe not so much.


----------



## surada (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> FACT: …… asked whether Saudi Arabia would allow more US troops to be placed on Saudi soil, the foreign minister replied, "under the present circumstances
> 
> !!!!  with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq,!!!!!!
> 
> ...




What high ranking Saudi Prince? Does he have a name?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

percysunshine said:


> Everyone who pays taxes supported the war in Iraq.



You are obviously an idiot. I pay a lot of taxes and I supported the 1991 war to liberate Kuwait. I opposed the Johnson and Nixon police action in Vietnam. I Supported the war in Afghanistan. But I vehemently opposed the idea that it was necessary to invade Iraq when peaceful inspections were on the verge of finding the same result - no wmd - that four months if Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe found out when the body bag sales  started going up. 

We patriotic Americans didn’t blame the troops  just because W lied and made a fucked up decision to break Iraq and own it. So of course some of my taxes went to pay the ones sent to cleanup W’s irresponsible war of aggression turned quagmire. I never supported that dumbass civilian’s stupid war..It never should have been started.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are obviously an idiot. I pay a lot of taxes and I supported the 1991 war to liberate Kuwait. I opposed the Johnson and Nixon police action in Vietnam. I Supported the war in Afghanistan. But I vehemently opposed the idea that it was necessary to invade Iraq when peaceful inspections were on the verge of finding the same result - no wmd - that four months if Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe found out when the body bag sales  started going up.
> 
> We patriotic Americans didn’t blame the troops  just because W lied and made a fucked up decision to break Iraq and own it. So of course some of my taxes went to pay the ones sent to cleanup W’s irresponsible war of aggression turned quagmire. I never supported that dumbass civilian’s stupid war..It never should have been started.



You payed for it, you own it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> FACT: …… asked whether Saudi Arabia would allow more US troops to be placed on Saudi soil, the foreign minister replied, "under the present circumstances
> 
> !!!! with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq,!!!!!!
> 
> I do not think Saudi Arabia will join in".: Prince Saud Alfaysal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister in 2003.





surada said:


> What high ranking Saudi Prince? Does he have a name?



Prince Saud Alfaysal,

The Prince who was in the White House was Prince Bandar.   That’s from pure memory.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

percysunshine said:


> You payed for it, you own it.



You own being an idiot. You are stupid.

Do you support what W did? Trump says W lied us into war.  I can’t own what a President lied about to make it happen. 

I paid to give our troops a chance to fix what lyin li’l Dubya broke. We had no choice because real terrorists came from outside Iraq due to the vacuum that W created. it was a mess. I opposed going in? Did you?


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You own being an idiot. You are stupid.
> 
> Do you support what W did? Trump says W lied us into war.  I can’t own what a President lied about to make it happen.
> 
> I paid to give our troops a chance to fix what lyin li’l Dubya broke. We had no choice because real terrorists came from outside Iraq due to the vacuum that W created. it was a mess. I opposed going in? Did you?


If you break it, you own it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

percysunshine said:


> If you break it, you own it.



Yes we did .  That’s why I opposed breaking it? Did you?


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes we did .  That’s why I opposed breaking it? Did you?



Indeed I did. Obama broke it by killing the shared power agreement.

We still own it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> We patriotic Americans didn’t blame the troops just because W lied and made a fucked up decision to break Iraq and own it.





percysunshine said:


> You payed for it, you own it.




Thats why I pointed it out to @9thIDdoc because he supported breaking it but does not believe W owns it..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2021)

percysunshine said:


> Indeed I did. Obama broke it by killing the shared power agreement.



What shared power agreement.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 19, 2021)

surada said:


> Saddam was no threat to KSA. Saudi Arabia had forgiven Iraq's OPEC quota debt. ..Kuwait had NOT.
> 
> Cheney lied to the King.
> 
> ...


What can of rationale do you use to claim that Saddam's strike across the border into SA was not an obvious threat? It was not only a threat it was an act of war. 

Link:
_I told King Fahd that the Iraqis were amassed on his border and we briefed him on the intelligence in terms of the size of the force that the Iraqis had already used in Kuwait._
This seems to be what you to try use to claim he lied. But this was perfectly reasonable given when the meeting took place as he explained next: 

_Pointed out that it was very hard for us to be able to help them unless we could get plenty of advance time 'cos it takes a long time to move heavy forces half way around the world and that timing was of the essence. That they did not have the luxury of waiting until Saddam began an invasion of Saudi Arabia and then ask for help because then it would be too late._

SA thought Saddam had plans to take SA's oil fields (along with the Country) as they just had in Kuwait. Chaney was right in what he told the King and he was believed and an agreement to host American troops was reached. Had he not agreed there would have been no American troops defending SA's territory when the Iraqis attempted their incursion.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 20, 2021)

Battle of Khafji - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



The *Battle of Khafji* was the first major ground engagement of the Gulf War. It took place in and around the Saudi Arabian city of Khafji, from 29 January to 1 February 1991 and marked the culmination of the Coalition's air campaign over Kuwait and Iraq, which had begun on 17 January 1991.
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who had already tried and failed to draw Coalition troops into costly ground engagements by shelling Saudi Arabian positions and oil storage tanks and firing Scud surface-to-surface missiles at Israel, ordered the invasion of Saudi Arabia from southern Kuwait. The 1st and 5th Mechanized Divisions and 3rd Armored Division were ordered to conduct a multi-pronged invasion toward Khafji, engaging Saudi Arabian, Kuwaiti, and U.S. forces along the coastline, with a supporting Iraqi commando force ordered to infiltrate further south by sea and harass the Coalition's rear.[4]

These three divisions, which had been heavily damaged by Coalition aircraft in the preceding days, attacked on 29 January. Most of their attacks were repulsed by U.S. Marines as well as U.S. Army Rangers and Coalition aircraft, but one of the Iraqi columns occupied Khafji on the night of 29–30 January. Between 30 January and 1 February, two Saudi Arabian National Guard battalions and two Qatari tank companies attempted to retake control of the city, aided by Coalition aircraft and U.S. artillery. By 1 February, the city had been recaptured at the cost of 43 Coalition servicemen dead and 52 wounded. Iraqi Army fatalities numbered between 60 and 300, while an estimated 400 were captured as prisoners of war.
Although the invasion of Khafji was initially a propaganda victory for the Ba'athist Iraqi regime, it was swiftly recaptured by Coalition forces. The battle demonstrated the ability of air power to support ground forces.


----------



## surada (Jul 20, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> What can of rationale do you use to claim that Saddam's strike across the border into SA was not an obvious threat? It was not only a threat it was an act of war.
> 
> Link:
> _I told King Fahd that the Iraqis were amassed on his border and we briefed him on the intelligence in terms of the size of the force that the Iraqis had already used in Kuwait._
> ...



KSA NEVER believed Saddam was going to take the Saudi oilfields.. That is about the more assinine project the ignorant could make.

Once the war began Saddam did lob a few SCUDs into Arabia and did zero damage.

They weren't defending Saudi territory .. They were staging their invasion of Iraq as economically as possible.

Cheney also told the SAG that the Americans would leave as soon as their mission was accomplished.. They stayed 13 years ad had to be asked to leave.

The US made KSA party to a frivilious, totally unneccessary war of aggression.

The Iraqis were NOT amassed on the Saudi border.

Cheney should have staged his invasion of Iraq from Israel.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 20, 2021)

surada said:


> KSA NEVER believed Saddam was going to take the Saudi oilfields.. That is about the more assinine project the ignorant could make.
> 
> Once the war began Saddam did lob a few SCUDs into Arabia and did zero damage.
> 
> ...


You are delusional and in denial of recorded history. 
Are you unable to read?
Again:
*The Battle of Khafji was the first major ground engagement of the Gulf War. It took place in and around the Saudi Arabian city of Khafji, from 29 January to 1 February 1991 and marked the culmination of the Coalition's air campaign over Kuwait and Iraq, which had begun on 17 January 1991.
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who had already tried and failed to draw Coalition troops into costly ground engagements by shelling Saudi Arabian positions and oil storage tanks and firing Scud surface-to-surface missiles at Israel, ordered the invasion of Saudi Arabia from southern Kuwait. The 1st and 5th Mechanized Divisions and 3rd Armored Division were ordered to conduct a multi-pronged invasion toward Khafji, engaging Saudi Arabian, Kuwaiti, and U.S. forces along the coastline, with a supporting Iraqi commando force ordered to infiltrate further south by sea and harass the Coalition's rear.[4]

These three divisions, which had been heavily damaged by Coalition aircraft in the preceding days, attacked on 29 January. Most of their attacks were repulsed by U.S. Marines as well as U.S. Army Rangers and Coalition aircraft, but one of the Iraqi columns occupied Khafji on the night of 29–30 January. Between 30 January and 1 February, two Saudi Arabian National Guard battalions and two Qatari tank companies attempted to retake control of the city, aided by Coalition aircraft and U.S. artillery. By 1 February, the city had been recaptured at the cost of 43 Coalition servicemen dead and 52 wounded. Iraqi Army fatalities numbered between 60 and 300, while an estimated 400 were captured as prisoners of war.
Although the invasion of Khafji was initially a propaganda victory for the Ba'athist Iraqi regime, it was swiftly recaptured by Coalition forces. The battle demonstrated the ability of air power to support ground forces.*

Iraq not only threatened and massed on the border it invaded and captured a SA city. In 1991. Only a purebred idiot would think that an invading army does not pose a threat.


----------



## surada (Jul 20, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> You are delusional and in denial of recorded history.
> Are you unable to read?
> Again:
> *The Battle of Khafji was the first major ground engagement of the Gulf War. It took place in and around the Saudi Arabian city of Khafji, from 29 January to 1 February 1991 and marked the culmination of the Coalition's air campaign over Kuwait and Iraq, which had begun on 17 January 1991.
> ...



Yes, I know Khafji.. Its on the Kuwaiti border. Been there. There's been an oil camp there since 1960.

The Iraqis occupied the town overnight I believe.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 20, 2021)

surada said:


> Yes, I know Khafji.. Its on the Kuwaiti border. Been there. There's been an oil camp there since 1960.
> 
> The Iraqis occupied the town overnight I believe.


If you knew that how can you claim Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to SA? They weren't there long because they got their ass handed to them.


Casualties and losses_*Iraqi claims*_:
4 helicopters shot down
30 tanks destroyed
58 APCs destroyed
13 APCs captured
_*Coalition estimate*_:
43 killed
52 wounded
2 captured[2][3]
9–12 armoured vehicles lost
1 AC-130 shot down_*Iraqi claims*_:
71 killed
148 wounded
702 missing
186 armoured vehicles destroyed
_*Coalition estimate*_:
60–300 killed
400 captured
90 armoured vehicles destroyed[2][3]


----------



## surada (Jul 20, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> If you knew that how can you claim Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to SA? They weren't there long because they got their ass handed to them.
> 
> 
> Casualties and losses_*Iraqi claims*_:
> ...



Shooing the Iraqis out of Kuwait was enough...even though the Saudis and everyone else knew the Kuwaitis were in the wrong.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 20, 2021)

surada said:


> Shooing the Iraqis out of Kuwait was enough...even though the Saudis and everyone else knew the Kuwaitis were in the wrong.


The battle occurred* before* the Iraqis were driven from Kuwait.
Now you claim the Kuwaitis were in the wrong because the Iraqis invaded and occupied their country? Cute.


----------



## surada (Jul 20, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The battle occurred* before* the Iraqis were driven from Kuwait.
> Now you claim the Kuwaitis were in the wrong because the Iraqis invaded and occupied their country? Cute.



Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.. Saddam had asked the US and the UN to addressed the problem for months.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 20, 2021)

surada said:


> Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.. Saddam had asked the US and the UN to addressed the problem for months.


So Iraq stole everything including lives from the Kuwaitis. You don't find that reaction (if true) to be a bit excessive?
Was Israel SA and the US also stealing from Iraq?


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That group of warmongering white evangelical nationalistic hard right Republican voting Christians had a lower standard when compared to all other groups including all other Christian groups. That group is the most anti-Muslim of all other groups and you think anti-Muslim bIgotry in that group had nothing to do with their being the most supportive of W’s dumb invasion knowing thousands of innocent Muslims would die.
> 
> 
> You are totally lost in any discussion involving reality. You are intellectually under developed. Did you get vaccinated yet or are you hoping to be the incubator for a new aggressive COVID variant that beats the vaccinated and starts a whole new epidemic and shuts everything down again?



1. That you can't support  your point without using retarded appeals to emotion, like "warmongering" is you admitting that you cannot support your point, at all.  You lose.

2. Incorrect. Plenty of people supported the war without being "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christians".  You are just saying shit now. 

3. This is the first you have made the claim that, this group is "the most anti-Muslim of all groups".  I doubt that you can support that in any way.

4 You even saying "anti-muslim bigtroy" is uncalled for. It is all shit you  just made up, you and the voices in your head.

5. You have demonstrated that you don't care about "innocent muslims dying" when you don't care, EXCEPT WHEN IT GIVES YOU AN EXCUSE TO SMEAR YOUR ENEMIES.


6. To support your  previously unstated premise, that "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christians" have a lower standard for war WITH MUSLISM, you have to compare their standard of war, with other groups.

You have refused to even try.


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW 


NotfooledbyW said:


> We can always tell when you are stuck.
> 
> The word “irrelevant” pops up when you are. Just like the little red thermometer in a Butterball Turkey.





Not, 

Hypothetical.  Ten years from now, a "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christian" President is gearing up for a war vs a Muslim nation. 


You have a choice in front of you.,


1. Take an stance against it, pointing out to those supporting the war, that the last time they did this, their standard for war was too low and they ended up going to war based on a false belief in WMDs and it did not go very well, 


OR. 


2. Take a stand against it, pointing out to those supporting it that they are going to war against Muslim people and that they have a low standard for that, because they are "wacist, bloodthirsty, warmongers". 



Question. Which do you choose and why? 


If you refuse to answer, I will answer for you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> Plenty of people supported the war without being "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christians".



I never said only white evangelical nationalistic hard right Republican Christians supported the war.


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The purpose of the peace loving world community prior t




I stopped reading here. Your drama queen-ness does not deserve consideration.


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I never said only white evangelical nationalistic hard right Republican Christians supported the war.




Correct. So your claim that THOSE PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY, had a lower standard for war, AGAINST MUSLIMS, is completely unsupported and reflects more on you, than on them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> Correct. So your claim that THOSE PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY, had a lower standard for war, AGAINST MUSLIMS, is completely unsupported



No. You are an idiot. All of you  Iraq invasion warmongers that are white but not evangelical Christian have a very low standard for war against Muslims. You got a Half million Muslims killed when there was no threat from them or the dictatorship they lived under. 

Black Americans religious or not opposed starting a war that could kill Muslims. They favored disarming Iraq by peaceful means just like white me and most Democrats did before the war.  Thats because black Americans and me and most Democrats have a higher standard before supporting an offensive war than you white rightwing warmongers do.


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. You are an idiot. All of you  Iraq invasion warmongers that are white but not evangelical Christian have a very low standard for war against Muslims. You got a Half million Muslims killed when there was no threat from them or the dictatorship they lived under.
> 
> Black Americans religious or not opposed starting a war that could kill Muslims. They favored disarming Iraq by peaceful means just like white me and most Democrats did before the war.  Thats because black Americans and me and most Democrats have a higher standard before supporting an offensive war than you white rightwing warmongers do.




That is your unstated premise. I have challenged you to support it. 


So far you have pointed out that other different groups had different standards for war.

That of course, does not support your claim of cause and effect.

You have also repeatedly asserted your premise, and repeatedly pointed out the race and faith of your enemies. 


Considering the seriousness of your charge, the fact that you are comfortable making it, when you are utterly unable to support it, 

is just you being an asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> Hypothetical. Ten years from now, a "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christian" President is gearing up for a war vs a Muslim nation.



Twenty years ago W was not a white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican Christian President. Drop the “ nationalistic hard right” part and that was W. But W’s significantly active war supporting political base was filled with white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican Christians - let’s be clear. We don’t need a hypothetical because I supported W’s war In Afghanistan to rid the place of Taliban who had connections to al Qaeda who had ties to 9/11. 

I do not make judgment on whether war is justified based on the religious beliefs of the President. I make it ordinarily based on if there is a peaceful option or not.


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Twenty years ago W was not a white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican Christian President. Drop the “ nationalistic hard right” part and that was W. But W’s significantly active war supporting political base was filled with white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican Christians - let’s be clear. We don’t need a hypothetical because I supported W’s war In Afghanistan to rid the place of Taliban who had connections to al Qaeda who had ties to 9/11.
> 
> I do not make judgment on whether war is justified based on the religious beliefs of the President. I make it ordinarily based on if there is a peaceful option or not.




That's nice. NOw, would you like to address the point I raised?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is your unstated premise.



I’m not offering a premise. I’m advising you on the facts. But if I offered a premise it would be stated not unstated.


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m not offering a premise. I’m advising you on the facts. But if offered a premise it would be stated not unstated.




It is  your premise. That you cannot support. Calling it a fact, is just you refusing to support your premise. Probably because you  realize that you cannot support it.

Indeed, it was an unstated premise, and it was kind of shitty of you to hide your real reasoning.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> That's nice. NOw, would you like to address the point I raised?




Yes. The point you raised is pointless. I may support a war if the President is a rightwing white evangelical Christian. I look at the facts and the threat. 

You only offer two choices; 



Correll said:


> 1. Take an stance against it



OR. 



Correll said:


> 2. Take a stand against it,




And for that reason I’m saying none of the above. 

I support the war in Afghanistan from the day W launched it though today.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is your premise



why did you call it an “unstated premise” 



Correll said:


> That is your unstated premise.



HELP US OUT. put my premise in a statement.


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes. The point you raised is pointless. I may support a war if the President is a rightwing white evangelical Christian. I look at the facts and the threat.
> 
> You only offer two choices;
> 
> ...





Got it. YOU are refusing to answer, for obvious reasons. As I said, I will answer for you.


You would choose number ONE, ie take a stance against it, and tell those who support it, that they are supporting the war because they are bloodthirsty wacists.


This would do nothing except piss them all because all you would be doing would be calling them names, like an ill mannered child.



You would NOT do number two, because that would actually be a productive thing to say, debate wise, and you have no desire to actually address the issue.


Your goal is just to smear your enemies and to rile up your side, to be more angry and hateful against them. 


Much like a man leading a lynch mob or a witch hunt.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> Got it. YOU are refusing to answer,



You are a liar. You can’t handle my answer. I would never take a stance against the need for war simply because of the religion and political ideology of the POTUS. 

w was wrong about IRAQ. w was right about AFGHANISTAN.


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. You can’t handle my answer. I would never take a stance against the need for war simply because of the religion and political ideology of the POTUS.
> 
> w was wrong about IRAQ. w was right about AFGHANISTAN.






My point stands. 

You would choose number ONE, ie take a stance against it, and tell those who support it, that they are supporting the war because they are bloodthirsty wacists.


This would do nothing except piss them all because all you would be doing would be calling them names, like an ill mannered child.



You would NOT do number two, because that would actually be a productive thing to say, debate wise, and you have no desire to actually address the issue.


Your goal is just to smear your enemies and to rile up your side, to be more angry and hateful against them.


Much like a man leading a lynch mob or a witch hunt.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> why did you call it an “unstated premise”
> 
> 
> 
> HELP US OUT. put my premise in a statement.


Oh please, allow me: 
You believe muslims of any race or nationality should murder, rape, torture, deceive, et cetera any they deem to be "infidels"(including those of other muslim cults) but especially innocent defenseless women and children because they are less likely to attempt to defend themselves (and muslims tend to be cowards). And that doing so will earn them a place in the muslim version of heaven where they can spend all their time defiling unwilling children.
Nailed it, didn't I?


----------



## Correll (Jul 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> why did you call it an “unstated premise”
> 
> 
> 
> HELP US OUT. put my premise in a statement.




Because it took weeks before you admitted it, but your entire position is based on it.

Your unstated premise:

My enemies the White Evangelicals bloodthirsty warmongers that supported Bush and later Trump, have a lower standard for war against brown Muslim people, BECAUSE THEY ARE BROWN AND MUSLIM.


You are of course, utterly unable to support this premise, but you stand by it, and use it as an excuse to be an asshole to people.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> You believe muslims of any race or nationality should murder, rape, torture, deceive, et cetera any they deem to be "infidels"(including those of other muslim cults)



You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your unstated premised e:
> 
> My enemies the White Evangelicals bloodthirsty warmongers that supported Bush and later Trump, have a lower standard for war against brown Muslim people, BECAUSE THEY ARE BROWN AND MUSLIM.



Nope! You are lying. White Evangelicals are bloodthirsty warmongers when they support killing half a million Iraqis who were not a threat to them when 200 inspectors were on the ground disarming Iraq peacefully. And  that is why you are a bloodthirsty warmonger too. its simple. You need not make anything up.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Nailed it, didn't I?




NoPe! you are a liar. I Supported W sending troops into Afghanistan and supported whole heartedly every MUSLIN terrorist we killed. It was related to the war on al Qaeda type terror. Iraq was not.


----------



## surada (Jul 21, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> So Iraq stole everything including lives from the Kuwaitis. You don't find that reaction (if true) to be a bit excessive?
> Was Israel SA and the US also stealing from Iraq?



Saudi Arabia , Israel and the US weren't stealing frm Iraq. What are you talking about? The oil business hates a war zone.


----------



## surada (Jul 21, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Oh please, allow me:
> You believe muslims of any race or nationality should murder, rape, torture, deceive, et cetera any they deem to be "infidels"(including those of other muslim cults) but especially innocent defenseless women and children because they are less likely to attempt to defend themselves (and muslims tend to be cowards). And that doing so will earn them a place in the muslim version of heaven where they can spend all their time defiling unwilling children.
> Nailed it, didn't I?



OK.. I get it. You are really ignorant and hateful.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 21, 2021)

surada said:


> Saudi Arabia , Israel and the US weren't stealing frm Iraq. What are you talking about? The oil business hates a war zone.


If was about the theft of oil why wage war on SA, Israel, and the US? Does a theft of oil justify the theft of a Nation or attacks on Nations that were no part of the theft? Was the oil thief actually Kuwait or Iraq? Much of the world did and does consider the charge of oil theft to have been an excuse rather than a reason. Invasion and occupation are not oil business.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NoPe! you are a liar. I Supported W sending troops into Afghanistan and supported whole heartedly every MUSLIN terrorist we killed. It was related to the war on al Qaeda type terror. Iraq was not.


Right. And those couldn't possibly be the words of a muslim terrorist attempting to deceive.


----------



## Correll (Jul 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Nope! You are lying. White Evangelicals are bloodthirsty warmongers when they support killing half a million Iraqis who were not a threat to them when 200 inspectors were on the ground disarming Iraq peacefully. And  that is why you are a bloodthirsty warmonger too. its simple. You need not make anything up.




But, that is based on  your premise, that they have a lower standard for war, against brown Muslims. Which you cannot support, at all. 


AND, don't  pretend to give a fuck about the "half a million Iraqis".

Your repeated dismissal of deaths, that you cannot use to smear  your enemies, shows that you really don't care about deaths, except when you can use them to smear your enemies. 



My point stands. THis is just about spreading hate and bigotry against White Evangelicals. 


If you really cared about those that died in the war, you would focus more on less divisive ways of addressing this issue. 


Nothing constructive can come from your current style of mudslinging.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> But, that is based on your premise, that they have a lower standard for war, against brown Muslims.



It is not a premise you moron. It is a fact. They actually had a lower standard for war against dark-skinned Muslims than most Americans and most Christians who had a higher standard for engaging in preemptive war that got half a million Muslims killed for no reason of keeping the peace or national security. 

It is a FACT that the higher standard of war that I am talking about is the standard of going through the UN and exhausting all peaceful means prior to starting the war in Iraq. It is the standard of listening to our allies France and GERMANY and also the Arab and Persian neighbors in the region and having a broad coalition before initiating combat. 

There were two standards for supporting or not supporting Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe. Yours is a lower standard mine is a higher standard as explained factually above. 

Grab some bench - sit down while you bitch and moan about format.


----------



## Correll (Jul 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is not a premise you moron. It is a fact. They actually had a lower standard for war against dark-skinned Muslims than most Americans and most Christians who had a higher standard for engaging in preemptive war that got half a million Muslims killed for no reason of keeping the peace or national security.
> 
> It is a FACT that the higher standard of war that I am talking about is the standard of going through the UN and exhausting all peaceful means prior to starting the war in Iraq. It is the standard of listening to our allies France and GERMANY and also the Arab and Persian neighbors in the region and having a broad coalition before initiating combat.
> 
> ...




Dude. DROP THE DRAMA. 

You care LESS THAN I DO, about the dead iraqis. 

I at least, am not milking their deaths for slimy partisan advantage. 


My point stands. Your premise, is unsupported, yet you stand by it. 


That you keep "forgetting" the bit about "because htey are brown muslims", I'm not sure what you think you are doing there, and I don't care. 


You are being very, very dishonest, maybe increasingly so, as I strip away the layers of bullshit and get to what this is all about for you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> You care LESS THAN I DO, about the dead iraqis.



You are a liar. Your actions speak louder than your phony words. You supported the  
Invasion that caused their death, and mist unusual about you, the WMD resolution  was not a threat concern for you. You killed ‘em to conduct the PNAC experiment for nation building. You don’t care about how many you killed in that experiment and you want credit for what you did for the survivors.


----------



## Correll (Jul 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. Your actions speak louder than your phony words. You supported the
> Invasion that caused their death, and mist unusual about you, the WMD resolution  was not a threat concern for you. You killed ‘em to conduct the PNAC experiment for nation building. You don’t care about how many you killed in that experiment and you want credit for what you did for the survivors.




Yes, I supported the war, and  hoped for an easy transition and as low of collateral damage as possible. I did care about the human cost and considered it seriously. 


YOU, are USING their deaths, for partisan advantage, while showing a complete lack of concern for any deaths that you can't use to smear your enemies. You don't care about their lives, or deaths, except how you can use them.


You are defiling their graves with your behavior. 


It is kind of disgusting. 



AND, too early for "credit". We don't know if the plan will work in the long run yet, or not.  It might have been all for nothing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Oh please, allow me:
> You believe muslims of any race or nationality should murder, rape, torture, deceive, et cetera any they deem to be "infidels"(including those of other muslim cults) but especially innocent defenseless women and children because they are less likely to attempt to defend themselves (and muslims tend to be cowards). And that doing so will earn them a place in the muslim version of heaven where they can spend all their time defiling unwilling children.
> Nailed it, didn't I?



Nailed what you Islamophobic moron? I don’t believe what you may have heard from white nationalistic evangelical Christian preachers either. 



Correll said:


> That you keep "forgetting" the bit about "because htey are brown muslims", I'm not sure what you think you are doing there, and I don't care.



This is a common belief among those being indifferent to half a million Iraqi deaths that were unnecessarily caused by your beloved experiment to nation build Iraq. 

*** “A good Muslim,” our head pastor, Marcus Warner, intoned that Sunday morning, “should want to kill Christians and Jews.” He insisted that this was the only conclusion possible from a serious reading of the Quran. *** America's Islamophobia Is Forged at the Pulpit


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes, I supported the war, and hoped for an easy transition and as low of collateral damage as possible. I did care about the human cost and considered it seriously.



That is precisely the lower standard for supporting a war you used when  our leaders in the White House did not exhaust every last peaceful means to avoid war and avoid any ‘collateral damage’  that separates you and me. 

And you support that lower standard to this day when it was brown skinned people of the Muslim faith that you convert to ‘collateral damage’ instead of recognizing them as viable human beings that deserved the right to live their lives without a predominantly Christian nation with unprecedented military capability bombing and invading them for their own good. 

You display your lack of morality and basic human decency with every one of your posts. And that’s not limited to this thread. You have a track record.

Part of the reason the black American community was hit hard by the global pandemic was they make up a large part of the workforce that was essential and had jobs where telework was not an option. So when vaccines became available it should be a simple decision to do whatever we can to protect all essential workers. 

Have you been vaccinated yet? 

Do you understand that not getting vaccinated gives the Delta variant more opportunity to survive and in that survival a new variant could emerge that can overcome the vaccines and here we go again?


An Alabama doctor explains how stupid the unvaccinated are:

*** "I'm admitting young healthy people to the hospital with very serious COVID," 










						Doctor reveals what she tells dying COVID patients who beg for a vaccine after thinking the pandemic was a hoax
					

An Alabama doctor has revealed heartbreaking details about her recent conversations with patients dying from COVID-19, amid a surge in cases caused by the Delta variant in the state with the lowest vaccination rate in the nation. "I'm admitting young healthy people to the hospital with very...




					www.rawstory.com
				




Dr. Brytney Cobia wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday. "One of the last things they do before they're intubated is beg me for the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them that I'm sorry, but it's too late.***


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> Many of the insurgents were not the "other side", they were outsiders who decided to come to Iraq to wage war.





NotfooledbyW said:


> And what made outsiders including al-Qaeda decide to come into Iraq?





Correll said:


> The presence of people they hate, Christians.



There were ancient Christians living well in Iraq without harm for 2000 until you wanted W to take SH out and you didn’t care if W had a plan and resources ready to protect them. 

Their deaths and expulsion from their ancient homeland are on you too. Its another reason to condemn the multitude of W’s mistakes but you don’t. You got your nation building and IRAQ’s oil didn’t pay for it as the White House warmongers predicted.


----------



## Correll (Jul 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is precisely the lower standard for supporting a war you used when  our leaders in the White House did not exhaust every last peaceful means to avoid war and avoid any ‘collateral damage’  that separates you and me.
> 
> ...



YOu are not making any sense, drama queen. 


YOu said, I didn't care and a lot of other shit. I pointed out that you were wrong.


You  want to address my points, instead of just reasserting your position and spouting some more hysterical drama queen shit?


----------



## Correll (Jul 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There were ancient Christians living well in Iraq without harm for 2000 until you wanted W to take SH out and you didn’t care if W had a plan and resources ready to protect them.
> 
> Their deaths and expulsion from their ancient homeland are on you too. Its another reason to condemn the multitude of W’s mistakes but you don’t. You got your nation building and IRAQ’s oil didn’t pay for it as the White House warmongers predicted.




Where do you get off on stating what I did or did not care about?

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?


Let me try it.


YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO...


You know, I just can't do it. I can't just make up shit, accuse you of it, and then hold you responsible for some shit I just made up.


Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> Where do you get off on stating what I did or did not care about?



You don’t care that W invaded Iraq to bring down the Government that protected the ancient Christians living in a Muslim land for two thousand years and didn’t have a plan to protect them once SH was given. That is a fact that you don’t condemn W for that egregious neglect and miscalculation. I don’t hear you criticizing W for that so the fact is you do not care at all about the plight of Iraq’s ancient Christians and the half a million dead Iraqis that W’s incompetence caused.   You just don’t. Its more important to you to keep your nose up a former Republican’s ass.


----------



## Correll (Jul 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You don’t care that W invaded Iraq to bring down the Government that protected the ancient Christians living in a Muslim land for two thousand years and didn’t have a plan to protect them once SH was given. That is a fact that you don’t condemn W for that egregious neglect and miscalculation. I don’t hear you criticizing W for that so the fact is you do not care at all about the plight of Iraq’s ancient Christians and the half a million dead Iraqis that W’s incompetence caused.   You just don’t. Its more important to you to keep your nose up a former Republican’s ass.




I'm not wallowing in pretend concern about events  of over a decade ago, in order to have an excuse to be an drama queen and call people names like an ass. 


That is all you can take from that.  If you want more about that, ask me questions, don't make up shit in your head, like an ass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> ask me questions, don't make up shit in your head, like an ass.



Do you condemn W’s failures such as not protecting the ancient Christians when W made it no longer possible by removing the man that had been protecting them and keeping them safe from Islamic terrorists for decades?


----------



## Correll (Jul 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you condemn W’s failures such as not protecting the ancient Christians when W made it no longer possible by removing the man that had been protecting them and keeping them safe from Islamic terrorists for decades?




Nice leading question. Ask me a real fucking question or does it hurt you brain to even think like that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> Nice leading question.



You always have a bitch about format. Just    a suggestion. If you are not a racist warmongering Bush Iraq invasion supporter just say you supported the war initially but because so many Iraqis died, were wounded and displaced W was wrong. Everything he did was wrong. You can admit you were fooled by W.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> Ask me a real fucking question



Already did:  Do you condemn W’s failures such as not protecting the ancient Christians when W made it no longer possible by removing the man that had been protecting them and keeping them safe from Islamic terrorists for decades?


----------



## Correll (Jul 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You always have a bitch about format. Just    a suggestion. If you are not a racist warmongering Bush Iraq invasion supporter just say you supported the war initially but because so many Iraqis died, were wounded and displaced W was wrong. Everything he did was wrong. You can admit you were fooled by W.




Seriously?* TWO FUCKING SENTENCES AND YOU HAD TO CUT IT?

IT IS NOT FORMAT.

IT IS THE POINT.

YOUR POINT IS TO USE THE WAR, AND THE DEAD AS AN EXCUSE TO SPREAD FEAR AND HATE OF YOUR ENEMIES. *


You are never going to make any constructive contribution to any discussion by calling people "bloodthirsty warmongers". 


What you will do, is increase division and hate. 

And that is your goal.


You are a bad man, doing bad shit. Right here, right now.


----------



## Correll (Jul 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Already did:  Do you condemn W’s failures such as not protecting the ancient Christians when W made it no longer possible by removing the man that had been protecting them and keeping them safe from Islamic terrorists for decades?






The idea of selecting out Christians for special protections in the war plan did not occur to me ahead of time. My consideration, my hope was for a smooth transition to a functioning and stabile parliamentary democracy, in the british model. 

From his words, policies and actions, I believe that President Bush's mind was in a similar place. So, while I do "CARE", as  you phrased it, about his "failure" on that front, I don't "condemn" him for it.


Because I do not blame him for it. I blame the terrorists that actually did the attacks. 


That is not, as you keep insisting, me not "caring" or being "Bloodthirsty". All of that, was you just trying to spread hate and bigotry.


----------



## surada (Jul 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> The idea of selecting out Christians for special protections in the war plan did not occur to me ahead of time. My consideration, my hope was for a smooth transition to a functioning and stabile parliamentary democracy, in the british model.
> 
> From his words, policies and actions, I believe that President Bush's mind was in a similar place. So, while I do "CARE", as  you phrased it, about his "failure" on that front, I don't "condemn" him for it.
> 
> ...



You mean declare war to force them to become a parliamentary democracy? Really? Jesus, you are crazy. You know absolutely nothing about Islam or the Middle East.


----------



## Correll (Jul 22, 2021)

surada said:


> You mean declare war to force them to become a parliamentary democracy? Really? Jesus, you are crazy. You know absolutely nothing about Islam or the Middle East.



Are you really pretending this is the first you heard of this plan? It was only the plan that was discussed for a solid year before had and then was the plan for the war for years and was implemented and now is still on going... so, 

what the hell are you even doing?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Nailed what you Islamophobic moron? I don’t believe what you may have heard from white nationalistic evangelical Christian preachers either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


... _Islamophobic moron?_
Feel free to consider me a moron. I am pleased to be underestimated by my enemies. But "Islamophobic" means "fear of Islamics" And since I am a full-grown male and able to defend myself from barbarians, I certainly have no fear of Islamics. If anything, they should fear me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> YOUR POINT IS TO USE THE WAR, AND THE DEAD AS AN EXCUSE TO SPREAD FEAR AND HATE OF YOUR ENEMIES.




You used the war to kill half a million Muslims for nation building because of your fear of Muslims. My point is to tell the truth about you.


----------



## Correll (Jul 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You used the war to kill half a million Muslims for nation building because of your fear of Muslims. My point is to tell the truth about you.




That is your assumption and your conclusion. You start there, and build on it, with more assumptions and then reach a conclusion that allows you to do what this is all about, spreading fear and hate against your enemies, your fellow Americans.


And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, don't pretend that you  give a damn about those dead muslims. You only care about the ones you can use as an excuse to be an asshole to people.


Indeed, your behavior, using a recent war as a tool, undermines any REAL discussion of the war, now and in the future, thus increasing the possibility of more wars.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> this is all about, spreading fear and hate against your enemies, your fellow Americans.



I don’t support getting one single innocent soul killed in a nation building experiment. You cant say that about your enemies.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t support getting one single innocent soul killed in a nation building experiment. You cant say that about your enemies.


You call Saddam and his minions "innocent souls"? Yet you pretend to have morals? You are one warped individual.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 23, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> You call Saddam and his minions "innocent souls"



No. You are a liar. SH and his enforcers are clearly not innocent souls because of all their crimes against humanity. It is a pure fact however that every single Iraqi that you wanted and got killed during the US invasion into Bagdad and the occupation of Iraq and the deadly nation building process that followed were absolutely innocent of any crimes or threat or any connection with the 9/11 attacks prior to Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE. Its time you took responsibility for supporting the crime of BS&A Iraq March 19 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is your assumption and your conclusion.



Its not an assumption. You supported and continue to support BLITZKRIEG Shock Awe March 19 2003 to hopefully put an end to your fear that Muslims create terrorists who will attack and kill you. If it’s not ‘fear’ that caused you to support killing half a million innocent Muslims in Iraq what was it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t support getting one single innocent soul killed in a nation building experiment. You cant say that about your enemies.





9thIDdoc said:


> You call Saddam and his minions "innocent souls"? Yet you pretend to have morals? You are one warped individual.



Perhaps this thread is way over your head but here goes. My morals allow me to state “ I don’t support getting one single innocent soul killed in a nation building experiment.”  I wrote that because the person I was responding to said this:



Correll said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





Correll said:


> 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.



Correll ‘s morality allows the government of a Christian Nation to start a war that will directly kill one or more ‘innocent’ Muslim human beings as collateral damage in order to ‘nation build’ the country in which the innocent human beings reside.

He tries to absolve himself of guilt by ‘hoping’ civilian casualties would be low in an unnecessary war. 

My morality wholly rejects supporting such a depraved immoral action and therefore I could never support anything like it.


----------



## Correll (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t support getting one single innocent soul killed in a nation building experiment. You cant say that about your enemies.




You have made it clear that you don't give a fuck about those that died, except as far as you can use their deaths for partisan purposes. 


The way you use them, is disgusting.


----------



## Correll (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Its not an assumption. You supported and continue to support BLITZKRIEG Shock Awe March 19 2003 to hopefully put an end to your fear that Muslims create terrorists who will attack and kill you. If it’s not ‘fear’ that caused you to support killing half a million innocent Muslims in Iraq what was it?



Stop pretending that you care about those that died. You couldn't care less. You've demonstrated that, repeatedly.


The way you constantly use them, is disgusting.


----------



## Correll (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Perhaps this thread is way over your head but here goes. My morals allow me to state “ I don’t support getting one single innocent soul killed in a nation building experiment.”  I wrote that because the person I was responding to said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I never said that my hope for low casualties was to "Absolve" myself of anything. 


That was something you made up, and you are, as normal, completely fucking wrong. And an asshole about it. 


Seriously. EVERY FUCKING TIME, you made such a guess or assumption, you are wrong, and yet you keep going with full confidence, and still are an asshole BASED on assumptions that you know are certainly wrong.


Do you realize what a bad person you are?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> I never said that my hope for low casualties was to "Absolve" myself of anything.



I know. You don’t think it’s immoral to support the nation building cause that killed half a million Iraqis who posed no threat to anybody for months ahead of the invasion. We understand you support killing them for their own good so their is nothing to absolve. But you are wrong.


----------



## Correll (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I know. ...



So, then why did you fucking say it?  Are you just saying shit, because you think it sounds "Bad" about your enemies?

Cause that is what it looks like.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> Stop pretending that you care about those that died. You couldn't care less. You've demonstrated that, repeatedly.



I didn’t support killing them. You support killing them. It really does not matter what you think about me.  What matters is the fact that you support disarming Iraq and/ or nation building which required killing them and caused many of them to be killed because their government was removed. 

I supported a few more months of inspections which did not require killing anybody. And we all found out by the Fall of 2003 that Iraq did not have the WMD - So my way would not kill them - Your way killed them. 

So any talk coming from you about who cared about Iraqis lives is meaningless.


----------



## Correll (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I didn’t support killing them. You support killing them. It really does not matter what you think about me.  What matters is the fact that you support disarming Iraq and/ or nation building which required killing them and caused many of them to be killed because their government was removed.
> 
> I supported a few more months of inspections which did not require killing anybody. And we all found out by the Fall of 2003 that Iraq did not have the WMD - So my way would not kill them - Your way killed them.
> 
> So any talk coming from you about who cared about Iraqis lives is meaningless.




Repeatedly I brought up other people lives, and/or deaths, and you never cared the slightest about them. 


you only cared, or should I say, "cared" when the deaths were useful to you.


You might not have supported the war, but it was not because of the lives of the people involved. 

You have demonstrated that you dont care about them. 

Indeed, the glee you show is milking their deaths, makes it seem like you are HAPPY they are dead. 


Do you realize that you are a bad person?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, then why did you fucking say it?



Because your hope for low casualties when their was a better choice with no casualties is to ease the guilt for causing as it turned out half a million to die but you can’t admit it or you are impervious to feeling of guilt when the deaths of Muslims is at stake.


----------



## Correll (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Because your hope for low casualties when their was a better choice with no casualties is to ease the guilt for causing as it turned out half a million to die but you can’t admit it or you are impervious to feeling of guilt when the deaths of Muslims is at stake.



That statement made absolutely no sense. 


Seriously. What the fuck are you doing?  


You are insisting that I said it, to "Ease my guilt" and then claim that I can't feel guilt over "muslims deaths".


Are you really unable to simply accept that I hoped for low casualties? Is that simple fact, a problem for your world view?


Your  need to see me and those like me as comic book villains, is you being immature. Do you realize that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> You might not have supported the war, but it was not because of the lives of the people involved.



I actively protested the proposed Iraq war.

I care about our the lives of our servicemen and women and I care about the innocent Iraqis and that is the ONLY reason that I joined every pre-war Protests in DC. 

And I paid close attention to the progress of the inspections. I HOPED W Would do as he promised and let Iraq be disarmed peacefully so NO FUCKING ANYBODY on either SIDE had to FUCKING DIE. There was no other reason to oppose It if Iraq could be disarmed peacefully. Iraq needed to be disarmed. Doing it without any killing was the way to go. 

Why are you so amoral and clueless about Iraq War 2003 through 2011.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 23, 2021)

Correll said:


> That statement made absolutely no sense.



You are in no condition to recognize sense. Let alone moral sense.


----------



## Correll (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I actively protested the proposed Iraq war.
> 
> I care about our the lives of our servicemen and women and I care about the innocent Iraqis and that is the ONLY reason that I joined every pre-war Protests in DC.
> 
> ...




Bullshit. I've brought up other groups of individuals who died or might have died, and you were utterly bored and uninterested. 

You only pretend to care, because it gives you and excuse to have a hissy fit and then paint your enemies as comic book EVUL.


----------



## Correll (Jul 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are in no condition to recognize sense. Let alone moral sense.




Dude. You CUT everything AGAIN?

Why are you being like this?  DO you realize how absurd that it?


Your need to pretend that those that oppose you, are comic book villains so that you can pretend that you must be the Hero, is childish in the extreme.


That  you are engaging in adult debates based on that kind of thinking, is tragic. 


That you support or oppose policy based on that, terrifying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Repeatedly I brought up other people lives, and/or deaths, and you never cared the slightest about them.




what are you talking about now. We are talking about half a million deaths caused by the invasion you support. There are no other deaths to bring up.,


----------



## Correll (Jul 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> what are you talking about now. We are talking about half a million deaths caused by the invasion you support. There are no other deaths to bring up.,




You forgot all the other lives/deaths I discussed with you? 

You just kind of proved my point. YOu don't give a damn about the lives of these far away people, EXCEPT AS THEIR DEATHS GIVES YOU PARTISAN AMMO.


You care less about them than I do. At least I don't defile their graves by using their deaths for partisan purposes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> You forgot all the other lives/deaths I discussed with you?




You could reply with whatever the hell deaths you are talking about if you knew what you were talking about. I cannot respond to your hallucinations.


----------



## Correll (Jul 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You could reply with whatever the hell deaths you are talking about if you knew what you were talking about. I cannot respond to your hallucinations.




The fact that you don't even recall them proves my point. You only care about the lives (deaths) you can use. 


Your goal in all of this is, not to avoid future wars, but to smear your enemies, to divide America and spread hate and bigotry.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> he fact that you don't even recall them proves my point. You only care about the lives (deaths) you can use.




How can I recall something that was never posted?


----------



## Correll (Jul 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> How can I recall something that was never posted?




Not. Stop fucking around. 


ALL you are doing here, is trying to increase division and bitter hatred between your fellow Americans. 


You are... poison. As a person, you are poison.



Why do you want to be like this? What is wrong with you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not. Stop fucking around.



What dead people?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> ALL you are doing here, is trying to increase division and bitter hatred between your fellow Americans.



You continue to support killing half a million Iraqis to disarm Iraq using violence because you had no patience and could not wait a few months to conclude inspections. 

I supported disarming Iraq by continuation of the peaceful means for a few months. We found out there would have been no reason for war if the inspectors were given the time they needed.

If pointing out your preference for killing innocent human beings sows division between those of us (six of ten Americans) who supported not killing innocent Iraqis then so be it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You continue to support killing half a million Iraqis to disarm Iraq using violence because you had no patience and could not wait a few months to conclude inspections.
> 
> I supported disarming Iraq by continuation of the peaceful means for a few months. We found out there would have been no reason for war if the inspectors were given the time they needed.
> 
> If pointing out your preference for killing innocent human beings sows division between those of us (six of ten Americans) who supported not killing innocent Iraqis then so be it.


As you should know at this point that part of the war was fought to remove Saddam; it was costing the American taxpayer and the Iraqi people far too much to let him remain in power. We went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties and those enemy troops who died fighting for a tyrant deserve no sympathy from anyone. The world is a better place without them. Your uninformed whining is stupid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 26, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> As you should know at this point that part of the war was fought to remove Saddam;



You are a liar. SH was removed ONLY because W decided he was not cooperating with the UN INSPECTORS Because W told you that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors therefore blowing SH’s  FINAL Opportunity To remain in power under UNSC Resolution 1441. 

What I say is a historical well documented fact that you and Correll cannot deny. That is why the both of you must lie about why you supported killing half a million Iraqis that died because of the Iraq War 2003 - 2011. 

And when you say you support killing half a million Iraqis in order to save paying federal income taxes it makes you about as ugly an American as you can be.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 26, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> . We went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties and those enemy troops who died fighting for a tyrant deserve no sympathy from anyone.



I never said our men and women in uniform who were unfortunately sent by W to kill and be killed in an unnecessary war did not try to avoid civilian casualties. They certainly did most of the time. 

The point to which you do not respond is that it was W’s singular and corrupt decision to invade that caused all the deaths. If the decision was to give the inspectors a few more months to finish their work then - then there is realization  no WMD in Iraq - Bush was wrong  / long term WMD monitoring begins / WMD related sanctions are lifted / SH stays in power / US and UK cannot veto UN decision to end sanctions / There is no war / Russia begins developing Iraq’s lucrative oil getting it on the world market / US and UK oil companies may not get contracts because SH is in power / half a million Iraqis do not die following W’s horrible decision to put an end to peaceful inspections  / no US troops are killed and they don’t get arms and legs blown off for six years / The American taxpayer saves the $5 trillion wasted on IRAQ $7 trillion according to DJT.


----------



## postman (Jul 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I supported disarming Iraq by continuation of the peaceful means for a few months. We found out there would have been no reason for war if the inspectors were given the time they needed.



Actually there was no reason to "disarm" Iraq, because they had already disarmed themselves.  The WMD's that were claimed to exist, were because during the Gulf War, the information ministry, and hence the records and paperwork were blown up.

So when the Iraqi's were asked to account for what happened to the WMD's, it was a "dog ate my homework" situation, except it was the US blew up the records that would have shown how they were disposed of.


----------



## postman (Jul 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. SH was removed ONLY because W decided he was not cooperating with the UN INSPECTORS Because W told you that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors therefore blowing SH’s  FINAL Opportunity To remain in power under UNSC Resolution 1441.



I remember Colin Powell famously said about the WMD's in Iraq.
If we find them, it means Saddam Hussein was lying all along.
And if we don't find them, it just means Saddam hid his weapons very well.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I never said our men and women in uniform who were unfortunately sent by W to kill and be killed in an unnecessary war did not try to avoid civilian casualties. They certainly did most of the time.
> 
> The point to which you do not respond is that it was W’s singular and corrupt decision to invade that caused all the deaths. If the decision was to give the inspectors a few more months to finish their work then - then there is realization  no WMD in Iraq - Bush was wrong  / long term WMD monitoring begins / WMD related sanctions are lifted / SH stays in power / US and UK cannot veto UN decision to end sanctions / There is no war / Russia begins developing Iraq’s lucrative oil getting it on the world market / US and UK oil companies may not get contracts because SH is in power / half a million Iraqis do not die following W’s horrible decision to put an end to peaceful inspections  / no US troops are killed and they don’t get arms and legs blown off for six years / The American taxpayer saves the $5 trillion wasted on IRAQ $7 trillion according to DJT.





NotfooledbyW said:


> I never said our men and women in uniform who were unfortunately sent by W to kill and be killed in an unnecessary war did not try to avoid civilian casualties. They certainly did most of the time.
> 
> The point to which you do not respond is that it was W’s singular and corrupt decision to invade that caused all the deaths. If the decision was to give the inspectors a few more months to finish their work then - then there is realization  no WMD in Iraq - Bush was wrong  / long term WMD monitoring begins / WMD related sanctions are lifted / SH stays in power / US and UK cannot veto UN decision to end sanctions / There is no war / Russia begins developing Iraq’s lucrative oil getting it on the world market / US and UK oil companies may not get contracts because SH is in power / half a million Iraqis do not die following W’s horrible decision to put an end to peaceful inspections  / no US troops are killed and they don’t get arms and legs blown off for six years / The American taxpayer saves the $5 trillion wasted on IRAQ $7 trillion according to DJT.


*The point to which you do not respond is that it was W’s singular and corrupt decision to invade that caused all the deaths. *
It most certainly was not only one man's decision to invade Iraq either time. 
Both invasions were the right course of action for America to pursue.
The responsibility for all deaths rests entirely on Saddam and his supporters (which apparently includes you). He chose to invade Kuwait. He chose to repeatedly violate the cease fire that might have resulted in an end to the war. The"...*singular and corrupt decision to invade..." *was made by Saddam when he invaded Kuwait.* 

If the decision was to give the inspectors a few more months to finish their work then -*
That was was the decision that was part of the cease fire. Ten years is more than "a few months". Saddam ignored the ultimatum to step down which was one last chance. Except that this time we meant it.

*US and UK cannot veto UN decision to end sanctions*
The UN did not fight the war. The UN did not make the cease fire although they approved it. The ultimatum to step down did not come from the UN. The USA is a sovereign nation that makes it's own foreign policy decisions which is exactly what we did.


----------



## Correll (Jul 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What dead people?




The ones I mentioned earlier and you dismissed, because you could not use them.


That showed that all your drama and pretend caring about the ones that died after the invasion, was bullshit. YOu are just pretending to care, so that you have an excuse to be an asshole.



NOt. Your whole goal here, it seems is to get people to admit that they are bad people. 


What are the odds of that happening, NOT?


----------



## Correll (Jul 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You continue to support killing half a million Iraqis to disarm Iraq using violence because you had no patience and could not wait a few months to conclude inspections.
> 
> I supported disarming Iraq by continuation of the peaceful means for a few months. We found out there would have been no reason for war if the inspectors were given the time they needed.
> 
> If pointing out your preference for killing innocent human beings sows division between those of us (six of ten Americans) who supported not killing innocent Iraqis then so be it.



Why do you want to increase division and hatred among Americans?


----------



## Correll (Jul 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. SH was removed ONLY because W decided he was not cooperating with the UN INSPECTORS Because W told




You are being dishonest and retarded. This bit where  you focus on a single statement or part of a grand strategy and insist like a retard that THAT WAS THE SOLE MOTIVE, 


is utterly retarded. You look like a complete retard and a complete asshole. 


Seriously. What kind of self image do you have, that you don't have a problem with presenting yourself like this?


Are you a sociopath?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 26, 2021)

postman said:


> Actually there was no reason to "disarm" Iraq, because they had already disarmed themselves.



I think it was reasonable to suspect SH had WMD but never should that suspiciousness be the grounds for starting a war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are being dishonest and retarded. This bit where you focus on a single statement or part of a grand strategy and insist like a retard that THAT WAS THE SOLE MOTIVE,



It was the sole and only basis for invading Iraq as presented by W and authorized by Congress. 

Its why they searched for a year to find them because they knew it was the only true justification to start killing Iraqis and getting more Americans killed than died on September 11 2001. 

There was no case for war outside of SH being in possession of WMD and getting those WMD into the hands of terrorists. 

The fact of the 1441 inspections being focused fully on WMD is the full and absolute proof that there was no plan by W to take down the regime if the inspectors verified that the WMD did not exist. 

W put  it in writing that SH can avoid war and removal if he was verified disarmed. 

Its why W lied on March 17 2003 that he had intelligence confirming with no doubt that SH was hiding WMD from inspectors.


----------



## Correll (Jul 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It was the sole and only basis for invading Iraq as presented by W and authorized by Congress.
> 
> .....



Your bullshit rationalizations for your bullshit, is not important. My point stands. What you are doing it retarded and asshole. 

My question stands. Are you a socio-path?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your bullshit rationalizations for your bullshit, is not important. My point stands. What you are doing it retarded and asshole.
> 
> My question stands. Are you a socio-path?



That is quite the opposite of a facts-based reasonable argument against the true facts regarding the ramp up to the Iraq War 2003 - 2011. 

There was no justification to attack Iraq in March 2003 except to remove WMD by removing SH. That is W’s absolute justification and only purpose for killing and being killed.

Its so easy to tell when you have neither facts nor reason to counter what I know to be true.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> This bit where you focus on a single statement or part of a grand strategy and insist like a retard that THAT WAS THE SOLE MOTIVE,



I don’t profess to have perfect knowledge of the ‘motive’ on W’s part for starting the Iraq War. The motive could very well be to gain access to oil for US and UK Oil Companies. 

The only sold justification for starting the invasion of Iraq was directly linked to possession of WMD. 

What grand strategy? There was no strategy let alone a grand strategy involved in the US invasion of Iraq. There is no explanation for what the UN inspectors were doing in Iraq except to find WMD if it was there. You are not dealing with reality as has become prevalent among Republican voters. 




Correll said:


> Your bullshit rationalizations for your bullshit, is not important.



What is bullshit about the ONLY reason UN Inspectors were on the ground in Iraq working to avoid a war..

A war solely based on SH’s possession of WMD. 

it was W himself who wanted inspections in Iraq so that W himself could avoid the necessity of starting a war because once SH is disarmed he gets to stay in power..


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is quite the opposite of a facts-based reasonable argument against the true facts regarding the ramp up to the Iraq War 2003 - 2011.
> 
> There was no justification to attack Iraq in March 2003 except to remove WMD by removing SH. That is W’s absolute justification and only purpose for killing and being killed.
> 
> Its so easy to tell when you have neither facts nor reason to counter what I know to be true.




We've completely covered the war as an issue. 


THe take away is that you were against it, and now you are dishonest about it, and using it to spread hate and division. 


The question is why. 


WHY do you want to tear America down? Do you see America as a bad thing? Are you against all nations, or just your own?


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t profess to have perfect knowledge of the ‘motive’ on W’s part for starting the Iraq War. The motive could very well be to gain access to oil for US and UK Oil Companies.
> 
> The only sold justification for starting the invasion of Iraq was directly linked to possession of WMD.
> .....




And that's a lie, thus demonstrating my point about your being dishonest about the issue now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The only sold justification for starting the invasion of Iraq was directly linked to possession of WMD.





Correll said:


> And that's a lie, thus demonstrating my point about your being dishonest about the issue now.



Its not a lie because W would not have invaded Iraq for any other reason than SH being in possession of WMD. There was absolutely no reason for W to set up and cooperate with UN Inspectors for four months if getting SH’s hands off of WMD was not the sole purpose for removing him from power. 

And W explains very clearly why he decided the peaceful inspections and SH’s regime must end. 


“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.


Is it true or false Correll that if W did not have “intelligence” that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised that W said and put it in writing that America was willing to leave SH in power and there would be no war?


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Its not a lie because W would not have invaded Iraq for any other reason than SH being in possession of WMD. ....




We are past discussing the war. We have covered it all.


The take aways are, you were against it,  and now you are dishonest about it, and using it to spread hate and division.


The question is why.


WHY do you want to tear America down? Do you see America as a bad thing? Are you against all nations, or just your own?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> We are past discussing the war. We have covered it all.



Then quit lying about the sole justification for the war if you cannot answer this very basic question. 

You can run from the question but you cannot run from the truth. 

So I will ask it again: 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Is it true or false @Correll that if W did not have “intelligence” that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised that W said and put it in writing that America was willing to leave SH in power and there would be no war?



Why do you call me a liar but refuse to acknowledge that the above statement is true? 

There was no cause or justification worth invading Iraq except for the claim by W that he possessed intelligence that left no doubt that SH continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised in violation of UN resolution 1441. 

If not for that intelligence W said multiple time he preferred to disarm peacefully and would do so. 

That means nothing else would justify war to the Commander in Chief of the US Military except SH being in possession of WMD the necessity to remove SH from power. AND YOU CALL me a liar for stating it and now you have to run away from discussing Iraq.

Go ahead and run. You are a proven liar..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> WHY do you want to tear America down?




Why is asking a liar like you the following question - tearing American down? 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Is it true or false @Correll that if W did not have “intelligence” that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised that W said and put it in writing that America was willing to leave SH in power and there would be no war?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> The take aways are, you were against it, and now you are dishonest about it,



you say I am dishonest but you cannot back a damn thing up to support the charges. 

Its true that W said this when he announced he finally decided that war was necessary. 

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

What is dishonest about that? Its the only reason W decided to invade Iraq on March 17 2003. He told us that. 

“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.





__





						President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
					

<a href="/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.v.smil"></a>Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight, and to discuss with the American people the serious matters facing our country and the world.



					georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov
				




 Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”

If you think W would do regime change in Iraq by invading for any other reason other than to disarm Iraq,  what was it? 

You cannot offer up one reason. 

The inspectors were not in Iraq looking for  ties to al Qaeda m. They were not there to determine if regime change and placing a MUSLIM democracy in the Persian Gulf was a great way to fight terrorists. So what were inspectors doing in Iraq at W’s request if not to disarm Iraq peacefully and take away all necessity for war.


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Then quit lying about the sole justification for the war if you cannot answer this very basic question.
> 
> You can run from the question but you cannot run from the truth.
> 
> ...



Too late, bored. We covered all of that. The only question is, why do you want to spread hate adn division?


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why is asking a liar like you the following question - tearing American down?




Because we've been over all of that, and gotten to the point of being past that.

YOu opposed the war, and now you are using it to spread hate and division. 


Why are you afraid of answering?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> We covered all of that.



No. The proof we didn’t is you are still dodging the same question. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Is it true or false @Correll that if W did not have “intelligence” that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised that W said and put it in writing that America was willing to leave SH in power and there would be no war?



You could answer “true” to the above question because “true” is the only truthful answer. But you can’t because the make-believe world you reside in comes crashing down if you ever admitted you actually understand the truth about Iraq.


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. The proof we didn’t is you are still dodging the same question.
> 
> 
> 
> You could answer “true” to the above question because “true” is the only truthful answer. But you can’t because the make-believe world you reside in comes crashing down if you ever admitted you actually understand the truth about Iraq.




I answered all your questions, over and over again. YOU are the one playing the dishonest game where if you DISAGREE with something you pretend it did not happen, not me.


YOU are the one who is refusing to answer questions. 


Why do you WANT to spread hatred and division among and between your fellow citizens?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> 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.



You say disarming Iraq was not the sole justification for invading Iraq. You give equal status to the argument that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. You are saying that W sought authorization from Congress in order to invade Iraq solely to place a functioning democracy in the ME. 

So what were UN inspectors doing in Iraq at W’s request so that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully and there would be no war to nation build? 

There is no logic or reason that can be applied to your preposterous claim.  “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.” 

That was never an argument fir the necessity of starting a war. It was a desirable outcome for warmongers at the time but it never held its own as a justification for war. The only justification was disarming Iraq of WMD to pull the trigger and fire the first shot.


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You say disarming Iraq was not the sole justification for invading Iraq. You give equal status to the argument that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. You are saying that W sought authorization from Congress in order to invade Iraq solely to place a functioning democracy in the ME.
> .....


YOu lie all the time.

1. Equal status? WTF is that? I never said that. That was you just making up shit and now trying to build...some bullshit on top of that previous shit.


2. I never said Bush did anything "solely" for any reason. I don't talk that way. I understand that people making decisions is a very complex and opaque process. YOU say shit like "solely for this reason" not me.


I was done with your post at that point. We have covered ALL this ground many times over. The vast majority of any further questions you have, will be based almost completely on your silly games, of editing out reasons you disagree with, or making stupid and conflicting assumptions and thus inventing contradictions based on nothing but the voices in your head.


We are done with that.


The question now is, WHY DO YOU WANT TO SPREAD HATE AND DIVISION AMONG YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. I never said Bush did anything "solely" for any reason.



That’s exactly the point. W decided to invade Iraq solely based on disarming the regime of WMD. There was no other reason to do it when he decided sometime after March 10 2003 to do it because; 

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

W did not say he just got some new last minute intelligence about SH’s attempt to assassinate his father. W said it was about WMD being hidden from inspectors. 

And you say I’m lying when saying the sole justification for war was to disarm Iraq. I’m quoting W himself for Christ’s sake.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> I was done with your post at that point. We have covered ALL this ground many times over. The vast majority of any further questions you have, will be based almost completely on your silly games, of editing out reasons you disagree with, or making stupid and conflicting assumptions and thus inventing contradictions based on nothing but the voices in your head.



Your arguments are still mostly about format and accusations about motive. That does nit cover substance.

Its why you refuse to answer this question:

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.





NotfooledbyW said:


> Is it true or false @Correll that if W did not have “intelligence” that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised that W said and put it in writing that America was willing to leave SH in power and there would be no war?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. Equal status? WTF is that? I never said that.



I never said I was quoting you. Its the basis of your false argument that nation building was an additional argument for the necessity of war. The one you liked to justify killing half a million Iraqis. That puts nation building on an equal status with disarming Iraq of WMD as a necessary reason to justify starting a war in a place where a war did not exist at the time. 

Its not true. Nation Building was never used as a justification for starting the war in Iraq 2003 - 2011.


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That’s exactly the point. W decided to invade Iraq solely based on disarming the regime of WMD. .....



People don't make decisions that way. Your claim is absurd. 

You are just talking shit now. 


Why do you want to spread hate and division among your fellow Americans?


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your arguments are still mostly about format and accusations about motive. That does nit cover substance.
> 
> Its why you refuse to answer this question:
> 
> “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.




We have covered ALL this ground many times over. The vast majority of any further questions you have, will be based almost completely on your silly games, of editing out reasons you disagree with, or making stupid and conflicting assumptions and thus inventing contradictions based on nothing but the voices in your head.

Why do you want to spread hate and division among your fellow Americans?


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I never said I was quoting you. Its the basis of your false argument that nation building was an additional argument for the necessity of war. The one you liked to justify killing half a million Iraqis. That puts nation building on an equal status ...



None of what you just said is true. 

I did not use it to justify "killing a half a million iraqis.  It did not "put it on an equal status".


YOu are just making  up shit, and then building new shit on top of the made up shit.


Why do you want to spread hate and division among your fellow Americans?


----------



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

Likkmee said:


>


Bush jr. Should have listened to his dad and stayed the hell out of Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why do you WANT to spread hatred and division among and between your fellow citizens?



Why is that your argument and answer to this question:



NotfooledbyW said:


> Is it true or false @Correll that if W did not have “intelligence” that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised that W said and put it in writing that America was willing to leave SH in power and there would be no war?



Why does asking you that question spread hatred and division among and between my fellow citizens? You make no sense . Trump and his MAGA supporters are united with the anti-war left on the matter that W lied us into war and the war was a huge disaster.  So you are a flat earther on the truth about Iraq. 

There comes a time  in society when confronted with people like you who can’t give up their beliefs (the earth is flat) when objective reality no longer supports it ( nation building justified invading Iraq on its own) it becomes necessary to move on. If that’s the division you are complaining about so be it. We can no longer coddle you and your beliefs.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> I did not use it to justify "killing a half a million iraqis. It did not "put it on an equal status".



Are you finally telling me that nothing justified killing the half a million Iraqis that W’s invasion caused.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> It did not "put it on an equal status".



Why did you post this then?



Correll said:


> 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.




Look at your answer to my question in post27097208


NotfooledbyW said:


> 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?





Correll said:


> 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 is putting nation building on an equal basis with disarming Iraq for earning your personal support for the invasion of Iraq which caused half a million Iraqi deaths.


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why is that your argument and answer to this question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Knock off the shit. We've covered that shit extensively. You are talking in circles just like Wally.

Now, Why do you want to spread hate and division among your fellow Americans?


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you finally telling me that nothing justified killing the half a million Iraqis that W’s invasion caused.




Why do you want to spread hate and division among your fellow Americans?


----------



## Correll (Jul 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why did you post this then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




YOu have purposefully conflated and confused, various reasons and goals and legal justifications, with no attempt to keep them straight, or to be honest about them. 


Did you do that on purpose to confuse the issue, to hide your ill intent, or was it an honest result of your confused thinking?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why do you want to spread hate and division among your fellow Americans?




I’m not. Why is this your argument?  It is not an argument. It is folly. 



Correll said:


> YOu have purposefully conflated and confused, various reasons and goals and legal justifications, with no attempt to keep them straight, or to be honest about them.



Again, that  is not a reply based on substance and content. It is a format complaint. It may very well be that you are confused by the facts, but that is your problem not mine.  

You certainly reveal a lot by the fact that you would rather make excuses than answer critical questions. There is absolutely nothing confusing about the fact that disarming Iraq was and is the only, sole and singular justification that W used to make the decision to invade Iraq.

That is why you were asked this question:



NotfooledbyW said:


> When and in what constitutional or any other legal framework was the GingrichKrauthammer nation building case Presented to the American people and Congress of the United States of America by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq as a case for self defense against the continuing threat of Saddam Hussein being the dictator of Iraq?
> 
> 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?



You told the readers on this forum that you support solely the GingrichKrauthammer nation building case for invading Iraq. 

You did not support the war because of the actual case for war that the President of the United States made. 

I cannot prove it but I suspect you are lying when you say you rejected the WMD argument and accepted the nation building argument prior to the invasion. 

I suspect that you were on board with the WMD scare tactics and lies during the ramp up to the invasion but when it turned out there were no WMDs you conveniently settled upon the Gingrich Krauthammer argument for nation building to cover the stench of your ignorance and being duped.

You have proven yourself to be the slimy worm that would lie about such things.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why do you never hold Saddam responsible for his choices?



You are a liar. The entire world was holding Saddam Hussain responsible when it unanimously passed UN security council resolution 1441. We, including America were holding him responsible using peaceful means and it was working. America drafted the fucking resolution. All it would’ve taken was a few more months of inspections. 

Apparently the war mongering blood-thirsty type of American in you got the better of you and you preferred that the Iraqi people be put in harms way so you could tell the UN to go fuck itself. As a result half a million of them are dead.


----------



## Correll (Jul 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m not. Why is this your argument?  It is not an argument. It is folly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




lol!!! No, it is you that is the liar here. YOu know it. I know it. This thread is pretty much dead except for us, so I don't know why you are lying about that.


We've been going in circles since MAY. Time to wrap it up. 


You are obviously just using this to spread hate and division. I want to know why. 


Do you hate America that much?


----------



## Correll (Jul 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. The entire world was holding Saddam Hussain responsible when it unanimously passed UN security council resolution 1441. We, including America were holding him responsible using peaceful means and it was working. America drafted the fucking resolution. All it would’ve taken was a few more months of inspections.
> 
> Apparently the war mongering blood-thirsty type of American in you got the better of you and you preferred that the Iraqi people be put in harms way so you could tell the UN to go fuck itself. As a result half a million of them are dead.




Blah, blah, blah, bullshit.


You WALLOW in holding Bush responsible for shit. You blame him (and his supporters) for EVERY single death in teh war.


If you give him ALL the blame, then you do not give ANYONE ELSE, such as Saddam, ANY of the blame. 


Normally when lefties do this, I consider it a form of racism.


BUT with you, I am getting more on an ideological based anti-America vibe.


Is that it?  Are you a communist?


----------



## surada (Jul 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> None of what you just said is true.
> 
> I did not use it to justify "killing a half a million iraqis.  It did not "put it on an equal status".
> 
> ...



The invasion of Iraq was one HUGE foreign policy blunder. If we face it, maybe we won't do such an incredibly stupid thing again.


----------



## Correll (Jul 28, 2021)

surada said:


> The invasion of Iraq was one HUGE foreign policy blunder. If we face it, maybe we won't do such an incredibly stupid thing again.




Not is not interested in that. His goal is to smear the formers supporters of the war as "bloodthirsty monsters".


He want to rile people up to hate them and make them as angry as possible. 

I think that his goal is simply to tear America apart.

I've tried to get him to consider the lessons of the war, for the purpose of future policy, and he just blew me off.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> Could have been an honest mistake.



Who made the mistake that started the war that ‘caused’ half a million Iraqis to die? Was it W or SH. 



Correll said:


> You WALLOW in holding Bush responsible for shit. You blame him (and his supporters) for EVERY single death in teh war.
> 
> If you give him ALL the blame, then you do not give ANYONE ELSE, such as Saddam, ANY of the blame.



You are a liar. I don’t blame war supporters. They were lied to. The ones that continue to lie in opposition to all the learnable facts share blame with W. 

Which leader started the war that ‘caused’ half a million Iraqis to die? Was it W or SH? Was W wrong when he said the following justification for war.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

There were no WMD. How do you blame SH for any of the deaths that resulted from the 2003 invasion into IRAQ?

Your argument is absurd.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> I've tried to get him to consider the lessons of the war, for the purpose of future policy, and he just blew me off.



When you lie about the ramp up to war you cannot teach any lessons if the war. You are continuing the corruption and lies that got us into the quagmire in the first place. The biggest lesson I can teach is the necessity of shutting down liars like you from wanting to do it all over again.


----------



## Correll (Jul 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Who made the mistake that started the war that ‘caused’ half a million Iraqis to die? Was it W or SH.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you call them "bloodthirsty monsters", you are blaming them. your denial is silly. 


Why do you want to tear America apart?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> When you call them "bloodthirsty monsters", you are blaming them. your denial is silly.



I’m not calling all war supporters blood thirsty monsters. You are a liar. They were lied to by blood thirsty warmongers. You keep lying to excuse the blood thirsty warmongers so you need not be excused.


Are you going to answer the question:



NotfooledbyW said:


> Who made the mistake that started the war that ‘caused’ half a million Iraqis to die? Was it W or SH.


----------



## Correll (Jul 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> When you lie about the ramp up to war you cannot teach any lessons if the war. You are continuing the corruption and lies that got us into the quagmire in the first place. The biggest lesson I can teach is the necessity of shutting down liars like you from wanting to do it all over again.




You are never going to get someone to "admit" to "lying", or being a "bloodthirsty monster".

When you spent your time, beating your head against that wall, you are obviously wasting your time.

UNLESS, your goal is just to keep the fighting going, getting people angry and divided against each other.


IF you drop the shit about "lies" or being "bloodthirsty monsters", you can discuss the limitations of intelligence, and the tendency of nations to be more open to war after an attack, or any number of useful topics.


BUT, you have no interest in any productive conversation.


YOu are all about fanning the flames of hate.


----------



## Correll (Jul 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m not calling all war supporters blood thirsty monsters. You are a liar. They were lied to by blood thirsty warmongers. You keep lying to excuse the blood thirsty warmongers so you need not be excused.
> 
> 
> Are you going to answer the question:




Seems just more of the same stupid circle debate. Pointless. 


What I am interested in, at this point, is WHY  you want to keep fanning the flames of anger and hate. 


Why NOt, why do you want to do this?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are never going to get someone to "admit" to "lying",



I know that. But watching you squirm is worthwhile


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> What I am interested in, at this point, is WHY you want to keep fanning the flames of anger and hate.



How is asking you who made the mistake - SH or W, fanning flames of hate? 

Do you hate yourself?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> and the tendency of nations to be more open to war after an attack



Do you mean AMERICA? And by America do you mean the adult American people. If that’s what you mean you are a liar and a warmonger for sure. 

*** War With Iraq: Americans In No   Hurry
BY JAIME HOLGUIN OCTOBER 6, 2002 / 5:38 PM / CBS Americans generally support military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and while most think war is inevitable, there is no rush to begin it, according to a CBS News/New York Times Poll released Sunday.









						War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry
					

<b>CBS News Poll</b> Shows People Are In No Rush To Begin War




					www.cbsnews.com
				




*** The public overwhelmingly wants to get the United Nations' weapons inspectors back into Iraq and allied support before taking any military action. Americans also want a congressional vote before acting - and think members of Congress should be asking more questions about the implications of war with Iraq.

*** Americans are concerned about the wider implications of war with Iraq. They believe such a war will result in a long and costly military involvement; they believe it will lead to a wider war in the Middle East with other Arab nations and Israel; and that it could further undermine the U.S. economy.

*** Americans are also cool to the doctrine of pre-emption. They believe countries should not be able to attack each other unless attacked first - and less than half of Americans think the U.S., in particular, has the right to make pre-emptive strikes against nations it thinks may attack in the future.

*** Military Action and Weapons Inspections   More people now than just two weeks ago favor giving the United Nations more time to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
U.S. SHOULD:

*** Now:  Take military action soon 30%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 63%

*** 2 Weeks Ago: 
Take military action soon 36%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 57%


So what kind of bullshit is “the tendency of nations to be more open to war after an attack” that you want to talk about?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That’s exactly the point. W decided to invade Iraq solely based on disarming the regime of WMD. There was no other reason to do it when he decided sometime after March 10 2003 to do it because;
> 
> “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.





Correll said:


> People don't make decisions that way. Your claim is absurd.



Not talking about people making decisions.  W made the decision to invade Iraq based solely on disarming the regime of WMD.  He says so. Can you refute the fact? This is not about the decision making process. 

He said there would be no war if SH were disarmed. That is a fact. Deal with reality.,


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Saddam ignored the ultimatum to step down which was one last chance. Except that this time we meant it.




You are a liar. SH did not ignore 1441. If the Iraq war 2003 - 2011 was a good and justified war why must you lie about it?


----------



## surada (Jul 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> Blah, blah, blah, bullshit.
> 
> 
> You WALLOW in holding Bush responsible for shit. You blame him (and his supporters) for EVERY single death in teh war.
> ...



Communist? Are you kidding. Operation Mass Appeal was initiated by the Brits in 1997-1998 to SELL the war on Iraq via an intense propaganda campaign. Mi6 and Sir Derek Plumbly managed the propaganda. ANYONE who knew anything about Iraq or the Middle East or the oil business could see what they were doing. It was all lies from the start and dependent on ignorance.


----------



## Correll (Jul 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I know that. But watching you squirm is worthwhile




One of the...tools you have used most in this thread, is the number of dead. 


You have taken the position of pretending to be unhappy about that. 


Why would you purposefully avoid constructive discussions on how to avoid that, and instead just "enjoy, watching people squirm"?


The reason is, that you are a sadist who just wants to tear down this nation. 

If there was another war, with even more dead, YOU WOULD BE HAPPY, because it would give you more ammo to do that with.


----------



## surada (Jul 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> One of the...tools you have used most in this thread, is the number of dead.
> 
> 
> You have taken the position of pretending to be unhappy about that.
> ...



Many Iraqi children died before the US invasion because of sanctions.
Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was ...
May 02, 2012 · Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was "worth it" wins Medal of Freedom.


----------



## surada (Jul 29, 2021)

'We Think the Price Is Worth It' - FAIR








						'We Think the Price Is Worth It' - FAIR
					

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the...




					fair.org
				



Nov 01, 2001 · Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It’s also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).


----------



## Correll (Jul 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> How is asking you who made the mistake - SH or W, fanning flames of hate?
> 
> Do you hate yourself?




Because you goal is to spread hate and division not find the Truth, and you are willing to lie to do it. 


You have LIED constantly in this thread.


----------



## Correll (Jul 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you mean AMERICA? And by America do you mean the adult American people. If that’s what you mean you are a liar and a warmonger for sure.
> 
> *** War With Iraq: Americans In No   Hurry
> ....




Yes, I mean America. America does not run itself by polls. Citing polls in America is like citing the what the Church wants. That is not the decision making process.


----------



## Correll (Jul 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Not talking about people making decisions.  W made the decision....




Seriously? 


Who let you get away with this shit, and taught you to be a weak debator?

FAIL.


----------



## Correll (Jul 29, 2021)

surada said:


> Communist? Are you kidding. Operation Mass Appeal was initiated by the Brits in 1997-1998 to SELL the war on Iraq via an intense propaganda campaign. Mi6 and Sir Derek Plumbly managed the propaganda. ANYONE who knew anything about Iraq or the Middle East or the oil business could see what they were doing. It was all lies from the start and dependent on ignorance.




That addressed nothing in my post.


Are you a communist? What is your ideological camp?


----------



## surada (Jul 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> That addressed nothing in my post.
> 
> 
> Are you a communist? What is your ideological camp?



Nope. Purely a capitalist. I just know more about Iraq and the Middle East than you.


----------



## Correll (Jul 29, 2021)

surada said:


> Nope. Purely a capitalist. I just know more about Iraq and the Middle East than you.




So, I forget, did you ever answer the question, what is your plan for dealing with muslim terrorism?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 29, 2021)

I request the mods. move this thread to conspiracy theories where it belongs. It has long since degenerated name calling without any useful discussion of issues. It is also providing a forum for anti-American propaganda.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> I request the mods. move this thread to conspiracy theories where it belongs. It has long since degenerated name calling without any useful discussion of issues. It is also providing a forum for anti-American propaganda.



So you are one of those? The discussion is quite useful to people who appreciate facts and knowing things.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> I request the mods. move this thread to conspiracy theories where it belongs.



Why don’t you stop with the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussain ignored United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. It’s not true. Why do you keep repeating it?


----------



## surada (Jul 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> One of the...tools you have used most in this thread, is the number of dead.
> 
> 
> You have taken the position of pretending to be unhappy about that.
> ...



Many Iraqi children died before the US invasion because of sanctions.


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 29, 2021)

surada said:


> Many Iraqi children died before the US invasion because of sanctions.


Many children died at the hand of your sunni/baathist hero   SADDAM HUSSEIN---
the   "baby formula"  libel is a joke


----------



## surada (Jul 29, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> Many children died at the hand of your sunni/baathist hero   SADDAM HUSSEIN---
> the   "baby formula"  libel is a joke



Didn't say anything about baby formula Albright saying 500,000 dead children was worth it.


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 29, 2021)

surada said:


> Didn't say anything about baby formula Albright saying 500,000 dead children was worth it.


was worth what?      Allbright's careless  "MISSPOKE"  is the basis of your idiot statement?  
   I remember the islamic libel well------something about destroyed ENFAMIL factories


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Not talking about people making decisions.





Correll said:


> Seriously?



Yes. Seriously. We are not talking about people making decisions in general. That was a diversion on your part. I don’t fall for your diversions. 

There is no purpose in chasing down any one of your numerous bullshit diversions. 

 We are talking about the very clear and plain “decision” that W made to invade Iraq and why. Whatever went into that decision making process and “how” that decision was made is a format issue. 

When you can discuss the actual “decision” itself please let us know.  

The “decision” was made by W to invade Iraq after March 10th based on Intelligence he had gathered by the USA and other governments that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal from UN inspectors some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” 

Do you agree? 

That is the only reason that W stated forced him at the last minute to  determine that  the peaceful means of inspections would not remove the threat of WMD in the hands of a brutal ruthless dictator and declared enemy of the United States and most of our allies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

Correll do polls exist? 

When you wrote “ the tendency of nations to be more open to war after an attack” …


Correll said:


> IF you drop the shit about "lies" or being "bloodthirsty monsters", you can discuss the limitations of intelligence, and the tendency of nations to be more open to war after an attack, or any number of useful topics.


….. are you telling me there was a tendency for Americans to be open to war in Iraq because of the September 11 terrorist attacks that hit 18 months prior to the invasion of Iraq? 

If so what is the basis for that argument as it related to Iraq from October 2002 through March 2003 - the ramp up to war that you support. 

I agree that tendency was there for military action into Afghanistan, but I have seen zero evidence that such a tendency existed for a majority of Americans when it came to Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> America does not run itself by polls.



Why did you say that? 

 I do not contend that America runs itself or runs on, or runs in any way by polls?  

A 6 out of 10 majority of Americans telling pollsters they want the UN involved to deal with WMD in Iraq from OCTOBER 2002 through March 2003 gives us the mood if the country on a specific topic in a certain moment if time. 

So why do you dismiss the majority’s serious mood and opinion when being asked to consider a preemptive war for the very first time.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why don’t you stop with the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussain ignored United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. It’s not true. Why do you keep repeating it?


Why don't you learn to read? I neither know nor care if that is true. The ultimatum to step down came from the U.S.A as did the cease fire offer. The U.S.A. is a Nation; the U.N. is not. The U.S.A. is NOT ruled by the UN. Ask an adult if you can find one.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Iraq was obligated to prove removal of WMD to US standards and never did.



How was Iraq obligated to prove removal if WMD to US Standards? The disarmament requirements in the UN ceasefire  agreement 1991 had absolutely nothing to do with the US  or US jurisdiction. 

Likewise, SH was not obligated in anyway to W’s ultimatum to leave Iraq on March 17 2003 because he was cooperating with inspectors under UN Resolution 1441. 

Your blind murderous support for W did not make him King of the World.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> THE 2003 invasion was to topple the regime and seize control of the country to look for the WMD that W said was there.





9thIDdoc said:


> This is merely your unsupported unproven opinion.



Are you saying W did not invade IRAQ to topple the regime and seize control of the country to look for the WMD that W said was there.

Precisely are you saying that the US military did not take control of IRAQ and search for WMD that W said there was no doubt that it was there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> This is merely your unsupported unproven opinion.



I wrote: 


NotfooledbyW said:


> THE 2003 invasion was to topple the regime and seize control of the country to look for the WMD that W said was there.



Why was that an unproven opinion? 

Here are W’s exact words on MARCH 17 2003. 

“It is too late for Saddam Hussein to re- main in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services: If war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.”

Read W’s words Correll and tell me why W didn’t tell the Iraqi military to stand so the Christian majority Nation’s army could come in and nation build the place but Sunnis will hold onto power and not lose their privileges under SH’s authoritarian rule. 

Do you see how stupid W was to say those words to a military made up of Sunni men who must have figured out that in an imposed democracy where majority rules - Sunnis would not have a prayer staying in power because the SHIITES alone were the formerly oppressed majority and with SH gone the SHIITES and Kurds would gain democratic Power. 

And there would be very little incentive for the Shiites to forgive and forget the decades of Sunni oppression of SHIITES under SH. 

W was quite stupid in that regard. Don’t you agree.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The U.S.A. is NOT ruled by the UN.



where did I suggest it was. The UN in Resolution 1441 drafted by W gave SH the ultimatum to cooperate with inspectors. When he did that, W had to lie about WMD as Trump said and issue a new ultimatum that had no legitimacy in international law and no reason for SH to comply with it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> where did I suggest it was. The UN in Resolution 1441 drafted by W gave SH the ultimatum to cooperate with inspectors. When he did that, W had to lie about WMD as Trump said and issue a new ultimatum that had no legitimacy in international law and no reason for SH to comply with it.


And there is the obvious flaw in your argument. The USA operates under US Constitutional law. NOT international law.


----------



## Correll (Jul 30, 2021)

surada said:


> Many Iraqi children died before the US invasion because of sanctions.




Correct. Do you care about them, or do you find it useful to use their deaths against your enemies?


----------



## Correll (Jul 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes. Seriously. We are not talking about people making decisions in general. That was a diversion on your part. I don’t fall for your diversions.
> ....



Dude. You cut the most important part of my post. That was insanely dishonest and cowardly of you.

And a point about how people make decisions IN GENERAL, would thus apply to an individual.


If you say that people generally, drink water, and thus that this individual drinks water. that's a valid point. 


Seriously. WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## Correll (Jul 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll do polls exist?
> ...
> 
> I agree that tendency was there for military action into Afghanistan, but I have seen zero evidence that such a tendency existed for a majority of Americans when it came to Iraq.




My observations at the time, it looked pretty obvious to me.


----------



## Correll (Jul 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why did you say that?
> 
> I do not contend that America runs itself or runs on, or runs in any way by polls?
> 
> ...




Because we are not a direct democracy. No country is. 

You want to avoid war? Elect leaders that want to do the same. 


America does not have a history of doing that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 30, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The USA operates under US Constitutional law. NOT international law.



When did the United States of America withdraw its membership in the united nations and seems to be an active member of the United Nations Security Council?

Food for your thought:

The language of Article 51 reads:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security” (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm).


----------



## Correll (Jul 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW 

If  you have a choice between smearing your enemies, and actually spreading your anti-war ideas, 

which would you choose?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> You want to avoid war? Elect leaders that want to do the same.



Another option is not to support and excuse leaders that lie to citizens about the necessity of preemptive war. And if you think it was not a lie, just an honest mistake, don’t excuse that either. President’s have plenty of resources that should prevent the kind of blunder that W made about WMD being hidden in Iraq. 

And when the blunder causes half a million Iraqi deaths you need not whine and piss and moan about Americans who aren’t so eager to sweep it under the ooops honest mistake rug like the white evangelicals and cultural Christians like you want to do.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because we are not a direct democracy.



Do you always have to dismiss the opinion of the majority because America is not a direct democracy? 

That question is directed to you because you have claimed  that Americans were more open to war in Iraq because of the September 2001 attacks. it was after the terrorist attack 2001 that six out of ten Americans said they preferred giving UN inspectors more time rather than invading Iraq over the WMD threat.  So why do you dismiss that peaceful preference and go around lying and blabbing that America wanted war and ran out of patience with SH.  You and a bunch of white evangelical Christians wanted war. But most Americans and many of them Christians did not..

So you made it up by observing only likeminded warmongers in your right wing universe.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> And a point about how people make decisions IN GENERAL, would thus apply to an individual.



You have no fucking clue “how” W made the decision to invade Iraq. We all know however what that decision was. 

He may have flipped a coin for all we know. 

You cannot discuss the decision itself so you want to take us through a detour. Your usual crap.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> If you have a choice between smearing your enemies,



You have not explained how asking you to answer a question is smearing enemies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 30, 2021)

W said, "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," … So Correll a relevant question to an Iraq invasion supporter in this thread - Do you think the family member survivors of the half a million IRAQIS who died as a result of W’s decision to Blitzkrieg Shock and awe the people of IRAQ to search for WMD, are more shocked and angry or less shocked and angry than the man who put their innocent lives in danger over WMD he said “there was no doubt” were there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. THe UN inspectors are not credible. Their claims have no weight.



Every single one of the inspectors’ claims about WMD held up. All of W’s claims about WMD were found not to be true. That is a fact.

Prompting W to write this: 

"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.









						George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack
					

Former US President George W Bush says he still has a "sickening feeling" because no WMDs were found in Iraq, in memoirs due to appear next week.



					www.google.com
				




 "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

 You are a flagrant and deliberate fact denier. Otherwise known to be a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact.



But a white Christian US President in your white cultural Christian head can start a war and invade a Muslim country that causes the deaths of half a million Muslims based on unverified intelligence that had zero physical verification of what the WMD was or where the WMD was or under whose control the WMD was being stockpiled. 

And when it turns out the intelligence was all wrong you say oooops, sorry dead people, honest mistake, let’s move on.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> Of course, I mostly don't care about your reasons then for what you believed then.



Since when are we supposed to have reasons for believing determinable facts?

For instance it was an easy determinable fact that SH was cooperating with inspectors and that The regime’s cooperation steadily improved from December 2002 until the start of the invasion in mid March.

I didn’t know that there was an option or need of having different reasons to believe an observable fact about something going on in the world and documented by reliable news sources and Authorities of the US government.

*** SECRETARY POWELL:  They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues

SECRETARY POWELL:  We've never said that war is inevitable.  The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution.  resolution? 

Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos 

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. ***


----------



## Correll (Jul 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Another option is not to support and excuse leaders that lie to citizens about the necessity of preemptive war. And if you think it was not a lie, just an honest mistake, don’t excuse that either. President’s have plenty of resources that should prevent the kind of blunder that W made about WMD being hidden in Iraq.
> 
> And when the blunder causes half a million Iraqi deaths you need not whine and piss and moan about Americans who aren’t so eager to sweep it under the ooops honest mistake rug like the white evangelicals and cultural Christians like you want to do.




I'm not pissing and moaning. YOU started this thread and asked a question. And I answered it. 

You did not address that my point was a COUNTER point to an point of your from the previous post. Are you dropping that point now? You have moved on to another. 

Are you conceding that previous point? Or since I countered it, and you can't refute what I said, is this more of a change the subject to distract from that fact that I disproved your point and you completely plan to come back to the refuted point in the future?


----------



## Correll (Jul 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you always have to dismiss the opinion of the majority because America is not a direct democracy?
> 
> That question is directed to you because you have claimed  that Americans were more open to war in Iraq because of the September 2001 attacks. it was after the terrorist attack 2001 that six out of ten Americans said they preferred giving UN inspectors more time rather than invading Iraq over the WMD threat.  So why do you dismiss that peaceful preference and go around lying and blabbing that America wanted war and ran out of patience with SH.  You and a bunch of white evangelical Christians wanted war. But most Americans and many of them Christians did not..
> 
> So you made it up by observing only likeminded warmongers in your right wing universe.




Kind of an asshole move to "ask" a "question" and then answer it, and then insult me as though your answer was my answer.


What that shows is that "questions" from libs are rarely actually questions asked in good faith. What they are, are generally ACCUSATIONS of bad behavior, falsely structured as questions. 

This is you debating in bad faith. YOu are not actually engaged in debate here, you are just spamming anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-white talking points, to spread hate and division. 


Which leads back to the only real question remaining, which is WHY are you doing that?


What is your ideological Identification?


----------



## surada (Jul 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> Correct. Do you care about them, or do you find it useful to use their deaths against your enemies?



What the hell is wrong with you?


----------



## surada (Jul 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> Kind of an asshole move to "ask" a "question" and then answer it, and then insult me as though your answer was my answer.
> 
> 
> What that shows is that "questions" from libs are rarely actually questions asked in good faith. What they are, are generally ACCUSATIONS of bad behavior, falsely structured as questions.
> ...



You just did the same thing to me. 

The invasion of Iraq was about lies NOT ideology.


----------



## Correll (Jul 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You have no fucking clue “how” W made the decision to invade Iraq. We all know however what that decision was.
> 
> He may have flipped a coin for all we know.
> 
> You cannot discuss the decision itself so you want to take us through a detour. Your usual crap.




I'm not the one that brought up his decision making, you were. ANd when I point out that your view on how he made the decision was obviously wrong, suddenly it is impossible to know how some one else made a decision?

That is you AGAIN, being a dishonest and bad faith debater.


It is painfully obvious that your goal here is not to arrive at the truth though the contest of ideas but to push a Lie, that you know is a Lie. 


If you were not a liar, at this point, you would DROP forever all your speculation and talk about the decision to invade, because you have admitted that you do not know, and cannot know how he made the decision. 


BUT, we both know that you will NOT, because when you say it, it sounds good. Even if it is immediately debunked you won't admit it was debunked, you will stonewall or dance away, and MAYBE you will convince some fool reading or listening that believe your anti-American shit.


And you will keep coming back to it. 


Wally.


----------



## Correll (Jul 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You have not explained how asking you to answer a question is smearing enemies.




I could teach you to go from being a troll doing nothing but spreading hate and division to being an effective anti-war intellectual spreading the idea of and support for Peace, effectively and usefully, 


with THREE WORDS. 


Would you like that?


----------



## Correll (Jul 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> W said, "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," … So Correll a relevant question to an Iraq invasion supporter in this thread - Do you think the family member survivors of the half a million IRAQIS who died as a result of W’s decision to Blitzkrieg Shock and awe the people of IRAQ to search for WMD, are more shocked and angry or less shocked and angry than the man who put their innocent lives in danger over WMD he said “there was no doubt” were there.




I would guess less.


----------



## Correll (Jul 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Every single one of the inspectors’ claims about WMD held up. All of W’s claims about WMD were found not to be true. That is a fact.
> 
> ....




Interesting claim. Sorry, can't be bothered to discuss them. That is too moot at this point.


----------



## Correll (Jul 31, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> But a white Christian US President in your white cultural Christian head can start a war and invade a Muslim country that causes the deaths of half a million Muslims based on unverified intelligence that had zero physical verification of what the WMD was or where the WMD was or under whose control the WMD was being stockpiled.
> 
> And when it turns out the intelligence was all wrong you say oooops, sorry dead people, honest mistake, let’s move on.




That is a good example of a "question" that is just an accusation of bad behavior. The majority of the text is actually spin, and racist, and bigoted spin at that. 


It is worth noting that the "question" itself has NOTHING to do with the post you "responded" to.


Indeed, it is impossible to imagine someone stupid enough to think that because you can't do one thing, that that would somehow mean that you can't do something else completely different.


Seriously, the level of dishonesty and bullshit you are slinging now. What is going on? Are you "feeling the heat" or just practicing how much shit you can throw in as small of a post as possible?


----------



## Correll (Jul 31, 2021)

S


surada said:


> What the hell is wrong with you?




What are you talking about?  You posted something and I agreed with you. 

Were you trying to make a point? If so, you failed to make it.


Try using words. Other people can't hear the voices in your head.


----------



## Correll (Jul 31, 2021)

surada said:


> You just did the same thing to me.
> 
> The invasion of Iraq was about lies NOT ideology.




Wars are not "about" "lies". 

IMO, the invasion of Iraq was at least partially about ideology, ie a the Ideology of a Liberal Secular West vs that of Islamic Fundamentalism.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact.





Correll said:


> It is worth noting that the "question" itself has NOTHING to do with the post you "responded" to.




I was responding to your declaration that UN inspectors cannot verify the 1991 unilateral destruction of WMD AFTER the fact.

You cannot respond to the point so you make another format complaint. What else can you do?

What is the problem with questioning your bad behavior. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> But a white Christian US President in your white cultural Christian head can start a war and invade a Muslim country that causes the deaths of half a million Muslims based on unverified intelligence that had zero physical verification of what the WMD was or where the WMD was or under whose control the WMD was being stockpiled.
> 
> And when it turns out the intelligence was all wrong you say oooops, sorry dead people, honest mistake, let’s move on.



Are we supposed to coddle you because you are a white American cultural Christian who supports the killing of half a million Iraqis over a mistake.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> I could teach you




You lied. You said SH poked the bear after 1441. You cant teach anybody anything about Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> IMO, the invasion of Iraq was at least partially about ideology, ie a the Ideology of a Liberal Secular West vs that of Islamic Fundamentalism.



The invasion of Iraq was about taking WMD out of SH’s hands to remove a threat to our national security, to ensure peace and tranquillity in the region and nothing else.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> What is your ideological Identification?



I don’t have one.  Thats a format complaint. I am here on this threat to present facts and confront lies and disinformation about the ramp up to war in Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 1, 2021)

When Correll was confronted with a direct quote by Senator Biden that I provided where he said that he considered giving the inspectors a few extra months brings no change in risk and would enhance building a coalition. Turns out Biden’s assessment in February 2003 was correct.  

So Correll resorts to this: 



Correll said:


> THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.
> 
> You are pretending that if it is there, it is a "Fact".



There was no pretending. Biden’s analysis prior to the invasion is a fact and was a fact placed on the record at the time. 

Within a year after Biden’s statement - events in Iraq made Biden’s statement true. Iraq and America would have been better off as Biden said if W held off invading Iraq until the next``cold,'' season in the late fall 2003 if war was necessary. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Biden said this;
> 
> “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? And that is a tough question.”



Because Correll is fact-o-phobic he resets the discussion to a generalized murky unarguable muck, so I asked a question in an attempt to bring Correll to a place where we can contain the discussion to be about specific language that our leaders used in the ramp up to invading Iraq.  I asked the following:



NotfooledbyW said:


> What aspect of that comment do you think Is a lie?



To which @Corell issued a complaint, bitch and moan. 



Correll said:


> Why did you misrepresent what I said?



Will Correll ever engage in a discussion based on specific verifiable facts. Perhaps when pigs fly.


----------



## Correll (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I was responding to your declaration that UN inspectors cannot verify the 1991 unilateral destruction of WMD AFTER the fact.
> 
> You cannot respond to the point so you make another format complaint. What else can you do?
> 
> ...




I'm not sure what "bad behavior" you are referring to.  And your constant referencing of my race and faith, makes you sound like a racist anti-Christian bigot.

I've said NOTHING that indicated that I want special treatment, especially special treatment based on my race or faith, so you "asking" that "question" 


is just you being a racist, bigoted prick.


----------



## Correll (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You lied. You said SH poked the bear after 1441. You cant teach anybody anything about Iraq.




Do you want to learn how to effectively spread your ideas of peace and thus reduce the likelihood of future wars and be partially responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives over time?

And I have been thinking about it. I can do it in TWO WORDS.


----------



## Correll (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The invasion of Iraq was about taking WMD out of SH’s hands to remove a threat to our national security, to ensure peace and tranquillity in the region and nothing else.




Said the man that knows that is not the way normal people make decisions. 

So, that is another lie.


----------



## Correll (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t have one.  Thats a format complaint. I am here on this threat to present facts and confront lies and disinformation about the ramp up to war in Iraq.




It is not about format. It is about you. l am curious about your motivations. Your behavior is contrary to the purpose of this forum and quite dishonest, and it is disturbing to me your apparent lack of a self image.


----------



## Correll (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> When Correll was confronted with a direct quote by Senator Biden that I provided where he said that he considered giving the inspectors a few extra months brings no change in risk and would enhance building a coalition. Turns out Biden’s assessment in February 2003 was correct.
> 
> So Correll resorts to this:
> 
> ...




I got to here and could not stomach any more.


1. It is a fact that Biden said something.  

2. That does not mean that what he said was true. Or even that he said it in good faith. 

3. YOu believe that it was true. Fine. 


But, you do not get to build shit on top of your assumptions about a statement of opinion. 


I don't know where you were going with that, if there was a new point buried in taht pile of shit, you should not have buried it, your should have led with it and dropped the shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> “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?





Correll said:


> 1. It is a fact that Biden said something.
> 
> 2. That does not mean that what he said was true. Or even that he said it in good faith.



Stick to this one quote from Senator Biden a month before the invasion. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> “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?



On the date when Biden said this W was publicly considering whether or not it would be necessary to start a war in Iraq. Do you accept that as a fact Correll? 

And in the above quote Biden expressed his thoughts about potential pending war in Iraq regarding the timetable and risks involved and the need for a Broad Coalition because he was also warning that in the event that war becomes necessary the task of maintaining order after toppling the dictator would be “immense” 

So Correll what exactly do you consider in Biden’s words to not be true or not be said in good faith?


----------



## surada (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The invasion of Iraq was about taking WMD out of SH’s hands to remove a threat to our national security, to ensure peace and tranquillity in the region and nothing else.



Except, Iraq was NOT a threat. Bibi Netanyahu wanted Saddam taken out. Read his Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> l am curious about your motivations.



Your assumptions about my motivations are false. My posts are for the purpose of presenting facts and refuting all myths lies and propaganda regarding the ramp up to the war in Iraq that W Started in March 2093. 

You have shown no interest in assessing the facts on that and that makes it difficult for you to engage in an open and honest discussion so you attack motivation rather than to dispute the true facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> I'm not sure what "bad behavior" you are referring to.



You made the false argument that UN inspectors cannot verify the 1991 unilateral destruction of WMD AFTER the fact. And when challenged that your point is literally impossible to be true and therefore a lie. You go apeshit nuts calling the facts I cited to debunk your lie - you call it spam - you say with no support for case that UN inspectors have no credibility. All on you say so. 

HerE are the posts that I am referring to. 


This was my factual response to you bogus claim: 


NotfooledbyW said:


> That was one of the issues UNMOVIC on the work programme that Blix mentioned in his report to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003, ten days before the dumb war was started.





NotfooledbyW said:


> How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months





Correll said:


> That was some nice spam. It certainly gave the illusion of being Authoritative, but without actually saying anything relevant.



That is bad behavior from a spoiked rotten  child in a discussion forum where both sides are expected to bring use and challenge each dudes facts. You never do. You throw tantrums and diversions. You are incorrigible and a liar.


----------



## Correll (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Stick to this one quote from Senator Biden a month before the invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You have a politician who voted for authorization of military action and then walked by his support with words after the fact. 

To me, ALL of it is suspect as a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth, to cover his ass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Except, Iraq was NOT a threat.



My observation during the ramp up to war to the present day was that Iraq was easily and justifiably considered a threat prior to the resumption of inspections in December 2002. SH in powers was not a threat as a justification for war during those several months when SH was actively in cooperation with the 1441 inspectors.


----------



## Correll (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your assumptions about my motivations are false. My posts are for the purpose of presenting facts and refuting all myths lies and propaganda regarding the ramp up to the war in Iraq that W Started in March 2093.
> 
> You have shown no interest in assessing the facts on that and that makes it difficult for you to engage in an open and honest discussion so you attack motivation rather than to dispute the true facts.




My conclusions about your goal are not assumptions, but based on observing your actions and your words. 


YOur purpose is to spread hate and division in your society. 


You are USING, the Iraqi invasion, and more specifically the deaths of civilians in the following insurgency, as gist for your propaganda mill.


It is quite disgusting. You should be ashamed. That is no joke. I am deadly serious when I say that. 


I seriously wonder if you might be a sociopath.


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 1, 2021)

I supported the War in Iraq on a number of fronts. First, Iraq had been a threat for years, our intelligence was in shambles, we did not know whether or not they had a hand in 9/11, we did not know whether they would harbor bin Laden or other terrorists. As it turns out, Saddam’s Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but given the threat they represented, could we let them sit and watch US as we got hit, it might have motivated Saddam to do something bigger.

if not for anything else, by taking the fight to Iraq, it motivated al qaeda to come fight US in Iraq and not focus all their resources on US for more domestic attacks.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> You have a politician who voted for authorization of military action and then walked by his support with words after the fact.



Buden authorized use if military force only  if determined to be necessary. His words in February 2002. indicate that he did not support starting the invasion prior to the inspectors finishing their work.  So because Bush promised he would support the peaceful effort without a deadline Biden clearly stated that he did not support an invasion prior to the summer because if the immense task of keeping order in Muslim nation broken by war. 

Biden was it covering his ass he was right. Bush invaded without a broad coalition and had no real plans and resources for dealing with the aftermath of regime change.

And half a million Iraqis died. And you support the incompetence and quagmire that Biden warned in advance was coming


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 1, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> if not for anything else, by taking the fight to Iraq, it motivated al qaeda to come fight US in Iraq and not focus all their resources on US for more domestic attacks.



You support motivating al Qaeda infesting Iraq society bringing Muslim on MUSLIM death and destruction and 18 years of horrific conditions IN A COUNTRY that had nothing to do with what all Qaeda did - you are one despicable human being just for considering that. Sicko. You bring disgrace to America. What a Shame.


----------



## surada (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> My observation during the ramp up to war to the present day was that Iraq was easily and justifiably considered a threat prior to the resumption of inspections in December 2002. SH in powers was not a threat as a justification for war during those several months when SH was actively in cooperation with the 1441 inspectors.



Well no.. Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. They just didn't want Iran to know how toothless they were. Remember Madeline Albright's remarks on how 500,000 Iraqi children had died due to sanctions.. and it was "worth it"?


----------



## surada (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Buden authorized use if military force only  if determined to be necessary. His words in February 2002. indicate that he did not support starting the invasion prior to the inspectors finishing their work.  So because Bush promised he would support the peaceful effort without a deadline Biden clearly stated that he did not support an invasion prior to the summer because if the immense task of keeping order in Muslim nation broken by war.
> 
> Biden was it covering his ass he was right. Bush invaded without a broad coalition and had no real plans and resources for dealing with the aftermath of regime change.
> 
> And half a million Iraqis died. And you support the incompetence and quagmire that Biden warned in advance was coming



Remember how the British Operation Mass Appeal began selling the war on Iraq in 1998?


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You support motivating al Qaeda infesting Iraq society bringing Muslim on MUSLIM death and destruction and 18 years of horrific conditions IN A COUNTRY that had nothing to do with what all Qaeda did - you are one despicable human being just for considering that. Sicko. You bring disgrace to America. What a Shame.


 I support taking the fight elsewhere outside of the United States as opposed to sitting like a duck waiting for another hit. Again, both al qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq were a threat. Looks like you are the so called non despicable type who apologizes for US exceptionalism and feels we should be punished. Tell Americans how that is not despicable.


----------



## surada (Aug 1, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> I support taking the fight elsewhere outside of the United States as opposed to sitting like a duck waiting for another hit. Again, both al qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq were a threat. Looks like you are the so called non despicable type who apologizes for US exceptionalism and feels we should be punished. Tell Americans how that is not despicable.VE
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 1, 2021)

At what point did you know Saddam was not a threat?


----------



## surada (Aug 1, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> At what point did you know Saddam was not a threat?



Since Iraq was crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions.


----------



## surada (Aug 1, 2021)

9thIDdoc

How much do you know about the ME or Iraq?

Have you ever been there? Have you ever heard of the Dual Containment Policy?


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 1, 2021)

surada said:


> Since Iraq was crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions.


And you knew this at the time of the decision to go to war? Was it based on fact or opinion? How come so many Democrats disagreed with you at that time? Many of them agreed with me.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 1, 2021)

surada said:


> 9thIDdoc
> 
> How much do you know about the ME or Iraq?
> 
> Have you ever been there? Have you ever heard of the Dual Containment Policy?


How much do you know about the US or her military or government? Don't need to know much about the ME to discuss US foreign policy or history.


----------



## surada (Aug 1, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> How much do you know about the US or her military or government? Don't need to know much about the ME to discuss US foreign policy or history.



I'm an American who knows the Middle East. We have made some damned stupid blunders in US foreign policy. Ignorance is a handicap.

I have been to Iraq man times, also Iran as far back as 1953. I have flown Tapline in a PiperCub..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 1, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> I support taking the fight elsewhere outside of the United States as opposed to sitting like a duck waiting for another hit.



Besides being morally depraved you are strategically  stupid. According to Trump the disaster in Iraq cost $7 trillion. It cost American military families 4,485 lives, tens of thousands wounded. 

You supported sending Americans in uniform into Iraq on March 17 2003 to drive around in Humvees and get blown up by IED’s planted on the roads by terrorists who were glad to oblige W!s insidious taunt to Terrorists to bring ‘em on.

We had already begin upgrading our defenses to stop non-national sponsored terrorist attacks on our own soil. We did not need to spend trillions to destroy and then rebuild an inept and corrupt Shiite majority government in Iraq.

It didn’t take that much to make sure al Qaeda was not going to strike again like they did when W was not up to the task.

 But for the  $7 trillion we wasted in bliwing up and rebuilding IRAQ..WE Could finished the job in Afghanistan and  debited more resources to protecting the homeland.  And maybe stopping domestic terrorists like this one. 


las vegas mass shooting from www.nbcnews.com
Oct 2, 2017 — A lone gunman unleashed a rapid-fire barrage of bullets from the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel late Sunday, killing at least 59 people and ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 1, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> And you knew this at the time of the decision to go to war? Was it based on fact or opinion? How come so many Democrats disagreed with you at that time? Many of them agreed with me.



When was the decision to go to war abd who made the decision?


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 1, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Besides being morally depraved you are strategically  stupid. According to Trump the disaster in Iraq cost $7 trillion. It cost American military families 4,485 lives, tens of thousands wounded.
> 
> You supported sending Americans in uniform into Iraq on March 17 2003 to drive around in Humvees and get blown up by IED’s planted on the roads by terrorists who were glad to oblige W taunt to Terrorists to bring ‘em on.
> 
> ...



you lost your argument at “we had already begun upgrading our defenses. Why did they need upgrading? (You might want to point to a decade of Clinton Gore gutting the Defense and intelligence budgets). When and at what point were those defenses adequate? Show us your expertise on defense.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 1, 2021)

surada said:


> I'm an American who knows the Middle East. We have made some damned stupid blunders in US foreign policy. Ignorance is a handicap.
> 
> I have been to Iraq man times, also Iran as far back as 1953. I have flown Tapline in a PiperCub..


So, exactly how do you think makes you an expert on US foreign policy?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 2, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> So, exactly how do you think makes you an expert on US foreign policy?



Did anyone remember to mention the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998?

H.R.4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998​
Vote result was 338-105 in the House.

Vote result was Unanimous in the Senate.

=====

America has several justifications to invade and kill that scum!


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Buden authorized use if military force only  if determined to be necessary. His words in February 2002. indicate that he did not support starting the invasion prior to the inspectors finishing their work.  So because Bush promised he would support the peaceful effort without a deadline Biden clearly stated that he did not support an invasion prior to the summer because if the immense task of keeping order in Muslim nation broken by war.
> 
> Biden was it covering his ass he was right. Bush invaded without a broad coalition and had no real plans and resources for dealing with the aftermath of regime change.
> 
> And half a million Iraqis died. And you support the incompetence and quagmire that Biden warned in advance was coming




You asked me why I thought that Biden's statement might not have been in good faith. I explained. 

Your response barely touched upon the point. 

YOu spent most of your time restating your core position. As though you are nothing but a lefty spam bot. 


That shows that your previous question, was not in good faith. 


Most of your discussion is like that. YOu are not really engaged in real dialog. My answers rarely serious matter to you. YOur questions are mostly accusations or just spamming  your points.


YOu are just here to spread hate and division.



I could teach you to spread your ideal of Peace or at least being far more conservative in the use of War as policy, in TWO WORDS.


But, you are not interesting in that. THe fact that avoiding ONE WAR, could save hundreds of thousands of lives, even "the children" that you pretend to care so much about..


You don't care enough to ask. You would rather spam propaganda like a stupid bot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> you lost your argument at “we had already begun upgrading our defenses.



How did I lose the argument? You aren’t denying that our defenses were being upgraded  prior to the start of the IRAQ $7 trillion quagmire that you support because you wanted to downs $7 trillion to fight the terrorists in a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists so we didn’t have to fight them over here. 

What about the $7 trillion price tag for fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them under the Confederate Flag in Alabama? You avoided my most critical point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> You have a politician who voted for authorization of military action and then walked by his support with words after the fact.





Correll said:


> You asked me why I thought that Biden's statement might not have been in good faith. I explained.



Your explanation (top quote) contained the fallacy that Biden supported W’s timing (MARCH 2003) to invade and supported the weak coalition that W  mustered to invade to search for WMD. 

Since it contained a fallacy it is not an explanation at all. And since you’ve been told about what Biden supported and you ignore it you are a liar..

The record show that Biden did not change his support it shows he has every right to say he told dumb-ass W so because W attacked Iraq absolutely unprepared for the aftermath of bringing down the regime.  

Biden was right about being it better to wait  - W was wrong. That is a fact.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your explanation (top quote) contained the fallacy that Biden supported W’s timing (MARCH 2003) to invade and supported the weak coalition that W  mustered to invade to search for WMD.
> 
> Since it contained a fallacy it is not an explanation at all. And since you’ve been told about what Biden supported and you ignore it you are a liar..
> 
> ...




I made no mention of timing. Your statement is a lie.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> IMO, the motive of the UN inspectors was PEACE AT ANY COST, which made their statements not credible. They have motive to lie.



House is it plausible that one of your ignorance based “opinions” can possibly ever render the UN inspectors’ professional statements not credible.

Only contradictory facts or some type of proven dishonesty on their part could make their statements not credible.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> I made no mention of timing.




You are the liar. You accused Biden of walking back his support “after the fact.” That related to time. 

But your lie is that Biden supported W’s decision to invade include the timing. 

I know you are ignorant when it comes to understanding how language works but when you mentioned Biden’s support for the invasion of IRAQ you are including him being supportive of the premature ‘timing’ of when the invasion took place and his support for the weak coalition. 

Why are you too stupid to understand that basic concept of communication.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are the liar. You accused Biden of walking back his support “after the fact.” That related to time.
> 
> But your lie is that Biden supported W’s decision to invade include the timing.
> 
> ...




lol!! What a load of crap. I stopped reading at "Time".

Dude. TWO WORDS, and I can turn you from a spam spewing bot that no one cares about, to a serious advocate for peace, that could influence hundreds or thousands of people with your ideas. 


That you don't care, shows what your real goal is, being an asshole and spreading hate and division.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> lol!! What a load of crap. I stopped reading at "Time".



You only read that far to figure out you are wrong and cannot counter my facts. its easy to tell when you are stuck.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You only read that far to figure out you are wrong and cannot counter my facts. its easy to tell when you are stuck.




 TWO WORDS, and I can turn you from a spam spewing bot that no one cares about, to a serious advocate for peace, that could influence hundreds or thousands of people with your ideas.


That you don't care, shows what your real goal is, being an asshole and spreading hate and division.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> TWO WORDS,



How about trying to refute the facts I just handed over to you about Biden never supporting the premature time line and weak coalition that W used to invade Iraq. Before W decided to be stupid and invade Iraq Biden warned W it would get ugly. And it did. Half a million Iraqis died. 

So I take it your eagerness to run from this point about Biden and timing is evidence  that you have no challenge to the actual facts that is put before your.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> TWO WORDS



I told you I do not accept instruction from known and wanton liars. IF I wanted to be taught by liars I’d join the Trump cult. Never will do that being of sound mind and spirit and vaccinated.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> TWO WORDS, and I can turn you from a spam spewing bot that no one cares about, to a serious advocate for peace, that could influence hundreds or thousands of people with your ideas.



I’m not advocating for world peace, I’m advocating  against right wing arrogance, lies, disinformation and right wing ignorance about the purpose, cost and morality of US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Curtailing that, peace will have a chance on its own when it is right. War is still necessary when it is justified by more than a political party and its political ambition.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> How about trying to refute the facts I just handed over to you about Biden never supporting the premature time line and weak coalition that W used to invade Iraq. Before W decided to be stupid and invade Iraq Biden warned W it would get ugly. And it did. Half a million Iraqis died.
> 
> So I take it your eagerness to run from this point about Biden and timing is evidence  that you have no challenge to the actual facts that is put before your.




We've gone over this for months. You want to just recover the same ground, because your goal is not to move the discussion forward, or really even to have a discussion, 

but just to spam lefty talking points, like a spam bot.


You are not debating in good faith. YOu are just here to push anti-American propaganda. And you know it.


TWO WORDS, and I can turn you from a spam spewing bot that no one cares about, to a serious advocate for peace, that could influence hundreds or thousands of people with your ideas.


That you don't care, shows what your real goal is, being an asshole and spreading hate and division.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I told you I do not accept instruction from known and wanton liars. IF I wanted to be taught by liars I’d join the Trump cult. Never will do that being of sound mind and spirit and vaccinated.




Your excuse for not being open to constructive criticism is noted and dismissed.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m not advocating for world peace, I’m advocating  against right wing arrogance, lies, disinformation and right wing ignorance about the purpose, cost and morality of US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
> 
> Curtailing that, peace will have a chance on its own when it is right. War is still necessary when it is justified by more than a political party and its political ambition.




So, you are ok with collateral damage, as long as the war is run by a leftwing administration.

Do you realize that that proves me right, that your hysterical whining about the dead civilians was just you putting on a show for propaganda purposes?


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> How did I lose the argument? You aren’t denying that our defenses were being upgraded  prior to the start of the IRAQ $7 trillion quagmire that you support because you wanted to downs $7 trillion to fight the terrorists in a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists so we didn’t have to fight them over here.
> 
> What about the $7 trillion price tag for fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them under the Confederate Flag in Alabama? You avoided my most critical point.


You are conflating different things.

1. “Upgrading our Defense (and intel)” - it would take a good 4-6 years before our D & I infrastructure wood be sufficient.

2. 9-11 Terrorists had nothing to do with Iraq - I have never made that argument. The argument I made was that Iraq was a threat. The terrorists were out of Saudi. It was orchestrated out of Afghanistan. We initially went into Afghanistan. AT THE TIME, the intelligence we had on hand had Iraq as a threat. My argument was that by taking out Saddam’s Iraq, it drew terrorists and terrorist agents from other countries out of hiding and into Iraq to fight as opposed to terrorists going to Afghanistan to fight us.

Was $7T and lives lost a hefty price to pay, absolutely. The way I took the original post to mean was At The Time, should we have gone in vs. In Hindsight, should we have gone in.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> 1. “Upgrading our Defense (and intel)” - it would take a good 4-6 years before our D & I infrastructure wood be sufficient.



Who says?


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> You are conflating different things.
> 
> 1. “Upgrading our Defense (and intel)” - it would take a good 4-6 years before our D & I infrastructure wood be sufficient.
> 
> ...




Not loves to do shit like that, just assign you arguments or take statements out of context and apply them to different questions.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> The argument I made was that Iraq was a threat.



Why was Iraq a threat with 200 UN inspectors on the ground with Iraq cooperating as it had never done before. 

W didn’t believe that an Iraq hat was peacefully disarmed of WMD was a threat specifically when that status was verified by the UNSC upon completion of inspections.  It was W that forced the end of inspections in  March 2003. It was not SH. 

So how do you accept the notion that Iraq was a threat knowing that W was wrong about WMD?   

That question is not a matter of having 20-20 hindsight because the inspectors on the ground in Iraq with Iraq’s full cooperation for several months is what eliminated the only credible threat that leaving SH in power posed. 

If W truly had solid intelligence from somewhere on the planet he obligated America to turn it over to the inspectors. Yes W obligated America to share intelligence such as that with the UN. Had he done so the inspectors would have shot it down rather quickly because there was no WMD being hidden.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why was Iraq a threat with 200 UN inspectors on the ground with Iraq cooperating as it had never done before.
> 
> W didn’t believe that an Iraq that was peacefully disarmed of WMD and that status was verified by the UNSC upon completion of inspections.  It was W that forced the end of inspections in  March 2003. It was not SH.
> 
> ...



He answered that in the portion of the post you cut away.


That was an asshole move on your part, to cut away his post, ask a question, or should I say, "ask" a "question", 


and then talk on and on, just spewing additional leftard talking points, instead of waiting for the answer, which we both know you don't care about, because you question was not really a question.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not loves to do shit like that,




Point to specifics, liar. You have none.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> He answered that in the portion of the post you cut away.



Point to what you think was the answer.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> He answered that in the portion of the post you cut away.






LeftofLeft said:


> AT THE TIME, the intelligence we had on hand had Iraq as a threat.



What ‘at the time’ intelligence are you referring to? 

Either of you two can tell us what you are referring to.

Are you talking about this? 

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> He answered that in the portion of the post you cut away.
> 
> 
> That was an asshole move on your part, to cut away his post, ask a question, or should I say, "ask" a "question",
> ...




Do you ever get tired of pissing and moaning about format issues? 

Thats your entire post and not one reference to a fact that you can confirm or deny can be found.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Point to specifics, liar. You have none.




He asks, AFTER cutting the portion of the post were I explain what I said.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Point to what you think was the answer.




The part you cut, because leaving it there made your question look stupid. YOu know which part that was. 


Stop being dishonest.


----------



## Correll (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you ever get tired of pissing and moaning about format issues?
> 
> Thats your entire post and not one reference to a fact that you can confirm or deny can be found.




We've spent months discussing the issues of the war. Now the topic is how dishonest you are and why do you want to spread hate and division among your fellow citizens.


Also, the bit where I point out that I can teach you to be a better advocate for Peace, or at least, more restraint on War, with TWO WORDS, 


but you don't care. Because all you really care about doing, is spreading hate and division.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> We've spent months discussing the issues of the war.



You are a liar. You don’t use facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> the bit



This is not a comedy club even though you are a joke.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> The part you cut, because leaving it there made your question look stupid. YOu know which part that was.




You are a liar. I don’t see an answer in the post. 


It would be easier and honest of you to highlight the ‘answer’ you think is there and post it with two words “right here”


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 2, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why was Iraq a threat with 200 UN inspectors on the ground with Iraq cooperating as it had never done before.
> 
> W didn’t believe that an Iraq hat was peacefully disarmed of WMD was a threat specifically when that status was verified by the UNSC upon completion of inspections.  It was W that forced the end of inspections in  March 2003. It was not SH.
> 
> ...


You trust and love for the UN shines above your hatred for Bush. This is the same organization whose “peacekeepers” rape and abuse children and overlook human rights violations by third world despots. Show us how the inspectors are not corrupt. 

Yet you question my morality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> You trust and love for the UN shines above your hatred for Bush.



Hatred for Bush is not a fact. Try sticking with facts. I fully supported W’s military action in Afghanistan, civilians are unfortunately being killed there you. But it was not a mistake or engaged over a lie. I hate what W did to cause half a million Iraqis to die by mistake at least, by lying as Trump says,  at worst. I believe the latter but if you want to believe the former you still ought to hate a mistake that killed half a million human being when there was no threat.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> You trust and love for the UN



The UN inspectors were right. W was wrong. I trust the agency that was right. You trust the lying idiot that was wrong.

You want to question my intelligence and love of my country with a point like that. What is wrong with you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> Show us how the inspectors are not corrupt.



First I’ve heard a suggestion the UN and its 1441 inspectors rape and abuse children. Are you Qanon?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> Also, the bit where I point out that I can teach you to be a better advocate for Peace, or at least, more restraint on War, with TWO WORDS,



I can advocate for peace in my own way by  promoting the truth about the dumbest and most dishonest warmongering in my lifetime. I don’t need help from one if that dumb war’s biggest liars.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> Yet you question my morality.



You support killing half a million Iraqis and cannot define how they were a threat to us.  I don’t question your morality I deplore it. More so when your slimy defense supporting so much desth and injury was to slime the UN inspectors as rapist and child abusers.

You are unhinged and sick.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> He asks, AFTER cutting the portion of the post were I explain what I said.




You never explain why or produce facts  that would explain what you say. That’s the reality why you cant ever go back and cut and past from previous posts. Its really not hard to do that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 2, 2021)

LeftofLeft said:


> Show us how the inspectors are not corrupt.




Do you have specific charges against the 200 Inspectors who were working to disarm Iraq peacefully in 2003 until W forced them to leave?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you actually believe the myth that @struth repeated is true. That actual WMD was found?





Correll said:


> IMO, the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.



Why is it just your opinion that the accusation was wrong that SH was hiding WMD in Iraq from inspectors in March 2003?

Why is it ok with you that struth perpetuates the myth, disinformation that W found the WMD that was used to justify a preemptive war?


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you have specific charges against the 200 Inspectors who were working to disarm Iraq peacefully in 2003 until W forced them to leave?



Specific charges are against the UN that undermined the US peaceful efforts to get Saddam to step down through sanctions before using force.  The inspectors are UN agents.

You chose the the UN over US.


----------



## Correll (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. You don’t use facts.




We are discussing our opinions on events. That you disagree with me, does not negate the FACT, that we have discussed this for months.

That bit where you pretend the discussion does not count, because you disagree with me?

That is just you being.... fucked in the head.


----------



## Correll (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. I don’t see an answer in the post.
> 
> 
> It would be easier and honest of you to highlight the ‘answer’ you think is there and post it with two words “right here”




TWO WORDS, and I can turn you from a spam bot that everyone hates, into a real person. Do you want that?


----------



## Correll (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I can advocate for peace in my own way by  promoting the truth about the dumbest and most dishonest warmongering in my lifetime. I don’t need help from one if that dumb war’s biggest liars.




No, you can't. You are terrible at it. You are spreading hate and division, not Peace.


If undermining the tendency to war on "lies" was a nice foot massage, 


you would be a rail road spike though the foot. A old fashioned, big and rusty and covered in diseased shit. 


And I don't mean though the thin portion of the foot, by the little toe, where it would be horrible, but you could get it removed and be ok.

I mean right up the Heel, and though the ankle, and well into the bones of the leg, so that you are not only in horrific pain, but permanently crippled for life. 


That's you. 


Two words, I could fix you. And I could easily demonstrate it too.


----------



## Correll (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You never explain why or produce facts  that would explain what you say. That’s the reality why you cant ever go back and cut and past from previous posts. Its really not hard to do that.




Sure I do. YOu just disagree with me and then tell yourself that since you disagree, it didn't happen.


YOu really are quite mad. Most libss are. 


You do put a little bit of personal spin on it, so, there is that.


----------



## Correll (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why is it just your opinion that the accusation was wrong that SH was hiding WMD in Iraq from inspectors in March 2003?
> 
> Why is it ok with you that struth perpetuates the myth, disinformation that W found the WMD that was used to justify a preemptive war?




He is being literal. Like you sometimes do, when it serves your purpose.  Technically some WMDs were found. 


I don't do that. 


It is a difference in how we look at the world. 


You can't understand it, because you have no ability to respect the internal world of other people. 


While I am quite good at it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> Sure I do. YOu just disagree with me



You do not present facts. No one rightfully can disagree with established facts unless they are loony. 

 In place of facts you simply claim that you disagree and declare yourself the winner and simultaneously engage in any number of your plethora of diversionary tactics.

An example is you claim that SH poked the  bear instead of cooperating with inspectors after 1441 was past in November 2002. You say we simply disagree. When the Chief inspector reports “proactive cooperation” on process and substance you declare UN inspectors have no credibility. 

You dismiss the fact that the positive status of the cooperation is confirmed by all observable reporting at the time. 

I provided direct quotes on National TV from W’s Secretary of State in December 2002 saying early on that Iraq was cooperating so war was not inevitable. 

You make no effort to provide a fact to support your complaint that Dr Blix is not credible. 

You dismiss reality, and declare out of thin fucking air that SH poked the bear instead of cooperating and that is why W had to start the invasion in the midst of IRAQ’s cooperation. Simply put. YOU LIE.


----------



## Correll (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You do not present facts. No one rightfully can disagree with established facts unless they are loony.
> 
> In place of facts you simply claim that you disagree a....




i stopped reading here. People disagree with "established facts" all the time. 


Your pretense otherwise, ironically, is YOU disagreeing with an established fact.


By your own rule, you are thus, "looney".


Dude. Your posts are so full of crap.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> i stopped reading here. People disagree with "established facts" all the time.



I never said they don’t. You discarded the qualifying word I used “rightfully” .  So you can wrongfully disagree with established facts that are commonly known as the truth, but that does not make your disagreement right.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> He is being literal. Like you sometimes do, when it serves your purpose. Technically some WMDs were found.



struth claims SH was hiding the very same grade of WMD that W said was being hidden. struth claims the invading army found the WMD that W sent them to look for. On that point struth is a liar. The fact that “technically” the old rusty shit can be called WMD struth is not telling the truth in the context of our discussion. That is because ‘factually’ and in context of his justification to start a war, W has admitted precisely that the old rusty shit that was found by the military was not what was used to justify the war. The distinction is clear W did not accuse SH of hiding old unusable rusty artillery shells from UN inspectors because that wouid have been stupid. 

So why is @struth’s ‘technically’  correct claim that SH was hiding very old rusty WMD shit and therefore struth can spread the lie and propaganda that the US military found what W sent them to find; which means we found the smoking gun that was used for justifying war? 

I believe the invasion would have been justified if we found by going in that SH was actually hiding the mos lethal weapons ever devised from the inspectors.  

But I would not give my consent based on struth ‘s technicality.


----------



## Correll (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I never said they don’t. You discarded the qualifying word I used “rightfully” .  So you can wrongfully disagree with established facts that are commonly known as the truth, but that does not make your disagreement right.




Name me a major historical or political figure you look up to.


----------



## Correll (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> @struth claims SH was hiding the very same grade of WMD that W said was being hidden. @struth claims the invading army found the WMD that W sent them to look for. On that point @struth is a liar. The fact that “technically” the old rusty shit can be called WMD @struth is not telling the truth in the context of our discussion.




That is all I can take of your bullshit.

CONTEXT? You have the nerve to whine about CONTEXT? lol!!!


Your whining on this point is dismissed. He is doing the same type of shit you do, except his motivation is to take America's side while yours is to tear it down.


----------



## Theowl32 (Aug 3, 2021)

Keep forgetting who signed the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds. Any hypocrite on the left know?


Old subject but yet another way the left accuse others of that which they are guilty and the left wing sheep like the op spew out their crap.

I already owned the banker when I asked him who signed the Community Reinvestment Act which put massive pressure on banks to lend to unqualified buyers which caused the housing bubble. 

Here. 


Hey banker who passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which exempted default swaps from regulation?

Do you know banker? 

Hello?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is all I can take of your bullshit.



There is no way that you can deny the truth and reality that your fellow warmonger struth is lying when he claims the invading army found the WMD that W sent them in to look for. That is such an obvious lie that you cannot wrap your brain around a way to defend it.



NotfooledbyW said:


> @struth claims SH was hiding the very same grade of WMD that W said was being hidden. @struth claims the invading army found the WMD that W sent them to look for. On that point @struth is a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 3, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Keep forgetting who signed the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds.



Sorry to hear your mind is failing you. 


Perhaps you forgot that the Iraq Liberation Act was not offering to send in a ground army. It only meant to support Iraqis who might have decided to take the dictatorship on. W sent in a ground army by mistake that didn’t know what to do after W told the insurgents to bring the attacks against our troops on.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is because ‘factually’ and in context of his justification to start a war, W has admitted precisely that the old rusty shit that was found by the military was not what was used to justify the war.





Correll said:


> CONTEXT?



What precisely is your problem with my use of ‘context’ regarding the description of WMD that W cited to justify his decision to invade and fuck up Iraq for $7 trillion dollars? 

There is no way out for you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 3, 2021)

Correll said:


> Struth is technically right, WMDs, were found.



That is right. some rusty old WMD’s were found. 

Were the rusty old WMD’s that were found dismissed by W for not being “the most lethal WMD ever devised” that he sent the US military into Iraq to find?


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no way that you can deny the truth and reality that your fellow warmonger struth is lying when he claims the invading army found the WMD that W sent them in to look for. That is such an obvious lie that you cannot wrap your brain around a way to defend it.


they found WMDs. I don’t think Bush have them specific WMDs too look for.

It’s just further proof that your old boss Saddam was in violation of the UN 

Face it your boy Saddam is dead, the world is better off for it


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

W admits 2006 on WMD in Iraq “It turns out he didn’t” have them. He didn’t have THEM means he did not have THEM. 




NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no way that you can deny the truth and reality that your fellow warmonger @struth is lying when he claims the invading army found the WMD that W sent them in to look for. That is such an obvious lie that you cannot wrap your brain around a way to defend it.



Did you catch it Correll ???  struth doubling down on his “they found the WMD that W started a war to find” LIE?



struth said:


> they found WMDs. I don’t think Bush have them specific WMDs too look for.



So Correll who is lying here: W or struth?

*** President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and 'Nothing' to Do With 9/11
STORYAUGUST 22, 2006 

the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. 

 ***


*** But Mr Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.









						George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack
					

Former US President George W Bush says he still has a "sickening feeling" because no WMDs were found in Iraq, in memoirs due to appear next week.



					www.google.com
				




 "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do." ***


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> W admits 2006 on WMD in Iraq “It turns out he didn’t” have them. He didn’t have THEM means he did not have THEM.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


huh?   what did I say that was somehow a lie, or contidict what Bush said?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> I don’t think Bush have them specific WMDs too look for





struth said:


> huh? what did I say that was somehow a lie, or contidict what Bush said?




You tell many lies. Let’s start with this one. 

You said Bush did not give our troops WMDs too look for.  

That is a lie #1 because if it was based on intelligence they would be looking for whatever the intelligence said was there. So they were not looking for old rusty shells. 

More reasons to follow.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not, do you believe that all differences of opinion means that someone is lying?



The party that has an opinion that is wholly dependent on an obvious lie is a liar. 


For example your opinion that SH did not cooperate with the 1441 inspectors that is based on your flat out lie that SH continued to “poke the bear” is a lie. 

It is not based on any slightest sliver of reality or any reported observations of the events taking place after 1441 was passed.

You are a liar.


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You tell many lies. Let’s start with this one.
> 
> You said Bush did not give our troops WMDs too look for.
> 
> ...


well i never said that.

so carry on


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> When and his did Saddam “poke the bear” after 1441.



I asked you specifically when SH ‘poked the bear’ after 1441 was passed. 



Correll said:


> Saddam had been poking the bear for years.



That is an important question that you keep avoiding providing a direct answer.

SH ceased poking the bear after the summer of 2002 when the US and UK increased air strikes in preparation for an invasion. 

Before that SH poked the bear all the time. I am not ignoring that history.


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I asked you specifically when SH ‘poked the bear’ after 1441 was passed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


when he continued to violate it…geez you’ve been shown this Baghdad Bob


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> they found WMDs. I don’t think Bush have them specific WMDs too look for.





struth said:


> well i never said that.



You did not say Bush did not give our troops (them) specific WMDs too look for? 


You wrote:  “I don’t think Bush have [gave] them specific WMDs too look for.” 

is ‘have’ a typo? intended to be ‘gave’? Is ‘them’ our troops?


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You did not say Bush did not give our troops (them) specific WMDs too look for?
> 
> 
> You wrote:  “I don’t think Bush have [gave] them specific WMDs too look for.”
> ...


i said i don’t think he gave…geez wow


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> when he continued to violate it…



You are a liar. SH violated nothing after 1441 was passed. W violated 1441 when he attacked to disarm Iraq violently.  

Correll was not a UN inspector at the time. His conclusion that SH was not cooperating means nothing and he is a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> i said i don’t think he gave…geez wow



You don’t think W gave our troops ‘specific’ WMD to look for. 

Is that what you meant?


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. SH violated nothing after 1441 was passed. W violated 1441 when he attacked to disarm Iraq violently.
> 
> Correll was not a UN inspector at the time. His conclusion that SH was not cooperating means nothing and he is a liar.


haha not according to the inspectors.  You can scroll through this thread.  It’s been shown to you 

You continue to ignore really Baghdad Bob


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You don’t think W gave our troops ‘specific’ WMD to look for.
> 
> Is that what you meant?


correct.  frankly liberating iraq from the brutal saddam regime was the first priority.  All the other stuff we found was just icing on the case to justify your boss being removed…and ultimately sentenced to death by the iraqi people


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> haha not according to the inspectors



That’s weird because the Chief inspectors were reporting proactive cooperation from Iraq for several weeks before the invasion. they stated that with that proactive cooperation they would finish the inspections by August and were starting to mobilize to set the long term monitoring        which would go on for years and years.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You don’t think W gave our troops ‘specific’ WMD to look for.



Your answer is:



struth said:


> correct.


m

That is not true. When you repeat it you are lying. You are contradicting W. 

Because W specifically admits that the rusty old WMD laying about on scrap pikes since the 1980’s was NOT the WMD that he accused SH of hiding and it was NOT the WMD that W sent US troops to find..

W says so because he had to. The truth is SH was not hiding the WMD that W either thought or fabricated a case that it was there. W cannot lie like you do and say he decided to start a war iver some old junky rusted out artillery shells that ‘technically’ might be classified as WMD. 

President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and 'Nothing' to Do With 9/11 AUGUST 22, 2006

the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.


00:53:03		PRESIDENT BUSH
Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destructions









						Presidential News Conference
					

President Bush held a press conference to answer questions from the media in the White House Conference Center Briefing Room, across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. He spoke briefly about the United Nations cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and...




					www.c-span.org
				




It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> well i never said that.



You said our troops found what they were looking for when they came up with some rusty old junkyard artillery shells that were classified as chemical weapons and Correll informed us that the old junk pile shells are technically considered WMD.

But W says They were not what he sent the troops to look for.


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That’s weird because the Chief inspectors were reporting proactive cooperation from Iraq for several weeks before the invasion. they stated that with that proactive cooperation they would finish the inspections by August and were starting to mobilize to set the long term monitoring        which would go on for years and years.


no they said they weren’t in compliance.  But that they were being some what more coppperarite

the report has been provided for you


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You said our troops found what they were looking for when they came up with some rusty old junkyard artillery shells that were classified as chemical weapons and Correll informed us that the old junk pile shells are technically considered WMD.
> 
> But W says They were not what he sent the troops to look for.


they found WMDs.  Sure that was one of many things they were attempting to do over there


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> they found WMDs



And what was the significance of the junkyard WMDs they found?


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> And what was the significance of the junkyard WMDs they found?


that saddam had wasn’t complying with the UN


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> no they said they weren’t in compliance.



Of course they were not in compliance you idiot. That’s why the inspectors were there.  Don’t you understand anything what do you keep posting about it?


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> And what was the significance of the junkyard WMDs they found?


what is insignificant is that they had rust.   Actually that makes them all the more dangerous…leaking deadly gas and chemicals could really be deadly.

but saddam obviously didn’t care, he cared very little for the people he oppressed


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Of course they were not in compliance you idiot. That’s why the inspectors were there.  Don’t you understand anything what do you keep posting about it?


yeah i do.  when you aren’t incompliance…there are consequences.   in saddam decade long game, it met getting removed…


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> that saddam had wasn’t complying with the UN



That is precisely why you are a liar. The old junkyard WMD was not being hidden by SH from the inspectors.  It was not the WMD that W said was being hidden from the inspectors. 

You lie.


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is precisely why you are a liar. The old junkyard WMD was not being hidden by SH from the inspectors.  It was not the WMD that W said was being hidden from the inspectors.
> 
> You lie.


haha of course they were hidden!  they were buried.  They weren’t turned over as required.

Bush didn’t lay out any specific WMDs that he wanted to find.  Geez dumbass how was he suppose to do that when saddam was hiding and lying?

come on baghdad bob…seriously


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> what is insignificant is that they had rust.



Why is it that W after all these years continues to state as a matter of fact that SH did not have any of the WMD that made hinn decide to start a war that killed half a million Iraqis and 4484  of our own. 

If W won’t lie about that why do you?


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why is it that W after all these years continues to state as a matter of fact that SH did not have any of the WMD that made hinn decide to start a war that killed half a million Iraqis and 4484  of our own.
> 
> If W won’t lie about that why do you?


i think he was expecting more 

what he personally expected isn’t relevant to what xiden authoritied the war for, nor what was found


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> haha of course they were hidden! they were buried. They weren’t turned over as required.



How do you know they were hidden, buried and not turned over. Until you provide a source on this I must consider it a lie.


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> How do you know they were hidden, buried and not turned over. Until you provide a source on this I must consider it a lie.


haha because the US military found them.  You really seem clueless on this subject Bob’


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> i think he was expecting more
> 
> what he personally expected isn’t relevant to what xiden authoritied the war for, nor what was found



W was the man receiving the intelligence telling him what to expect. 

Biden advised Bush to wait to let the inspections continue. W should have listened to save $7 trillion, keep half a million Iraqis and 4484 Americans alive. 

Old junkyard shells were not part of it apparently.


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> W was the man receiving the intelligence telling him what to expect.
> 
> Biden advised Bush to wait to let the inspections continue. W should have listened to save $7 trillion, keep half a million Iraqis and 4484 Americans alive.
> 
> Old junkyard shells were not part of it apparently.


Yep.  And the intel, both foreign and domestic expected more.  

Xiden authorized the war....we've been through this.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> haha because the US military found them.



Idiot. What is your source that they were buried or hidden? Junk piles were known to inspectors. When the invasion started the junkpiles were scavenged and old shell   s end up anywhere. 

Not a good plan that invasion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> p. And the intel, both foreign and domestic expected more.



of course they did. that’s my point. 

If old rusty shells were justification for starting a war W would make sure the word hit out. But it wasn’t.


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> of course they did. that’s my point.
> 
> If old rusty shells were justification for starting a war W would make sure the word hit out. But it wasn’t.


no there were number reasons xiden authorized bush to use military force.  Not just saddams’s noncompliance with the UN to turn over his WMDs


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> no there were number reasons xiden authorized bush to use military force.



You are a liar. List them I will shut them down. You won’t provide a list because you are lying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> no there were number reasons xiden authorized bush to use military force. Not just saddams’s noncompliance with the UN to turn over his WMDs




How’s come Biden Wanted W to avoid war by going through the UN with 1441 and give inspectors three more months to disarm Iraq with no regime change? 

1441 inspectors were dealing with ONLY one issue: WMD. 

What else do you think 1441 inspectors were looking at?


----------



## struth (Aug 4, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. List them I will shut them down. You won’t provide a list because you are lying.


i have.  irs in the law


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> no there were number reasons xiden authorized bush to use military force. Not just saddams’s noncompliance with the UN to turn over his WMDs



Correll do you agree that struth knows why Senator Biden voted to authorize military force against Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 4, 2021)

struth said:


> . irs in the law



Going through the UN to avoid war was a key part of the law. So you cannot answer the question or provide a list of what UN inspectors were looking at other than WMD.  There is no other issue. You are lying.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no way that you can deny the truth and reality that your fellow warmonger struth is lying when he claims the invading army found the WMD that W sent them in to look for. That is such an obvious lie that you cannot wrap your brain around a way to defend it.



Dude. You're being pathetic. Your inability to respect other viewpoints, is pathological.

He is technically correct. You are having a hissy fit, because, he is actually kind of playing your game BACK AT YOU.


He is focusing on the literal wording, while ignoring massive context. Just like you.


He is focusing on some utterances, while ignoring later or earlier quotes FROM THE SAME PERSON, just like you.


He is certainly NOT lying. He is being literal. It gives him valid reason to not admit fault for the side he is biased in favor of, ie America.


Just like you. Except your side, is anyone opposed to America.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What precisely is your problem with my use of ‘context’ regarding the description of WMD that W cited to justify his decision to invade and fuck up Iraq for $7 trillion dollars?
> 
> There is no way out for you?




The fact that now that "context" works to support your current limited point, suddenly you discovered it, and support it, when previously it was like speaking greek to you. 

If you were an alien lifeform from a far star. 


That spoke by using variations of color in your mucus layer. 


And didn't even have a concept of sound. 


Or greeks. 


That's my problem with it.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is right. some rusty old WMD’s were found.
> 
> Were the rusty old WMD’s that were found dismissed by W for not being “the most lethal WMD ever devised” that he sent the US military into Iraq to find?




Why the sudden respect for George Bush as an arbitrator of what matters? Oh, because now he agrees with you. 


Pretty pathetic.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why the sudden respect for George Bush




Quit the dishonesty.  I’ve mentioned my full support on his decision take out the Taliban after 911. He just should have stuck with the war on terror against the nation state that support the terrorists that attacked us.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> The fact that now that "context" works to support your current limited point, suddenly you discovered it, and support it, when previously it was like speaking greek to you.




That’s another format complaint. What is wrong with the way I used the word according to what it means? 

Everything I say is tied to context. My facts are always tied to context. 

When your retarded pal says that !!Hallelujah!! WMD was found in Iraq without the context and distinction that it was inoperable junkyard shit he is lying when he ties it to W found the WMD that he used to justify the invasion. 

And you condone and respect that liar and his out of context lie. 

And so you go to your bit where you bitch and moan about format. You are such a predictable piece of work.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> He is being literal




You are a liar..He is not being literal when he goes beyond: 

They found WMD in Iraq. 

That is being literal. That’s fine. Stupid but fine. 

But your retarded warmongering pal goes well beyond being literal when he says:

They found the WMD in Iraq that W Used to justify starting the war. 

They found WMD in Iraq so that proves W was right because SH was hiding WMD from inspectors.

That is a lie. It is lying by omission of the pertinent and critical fact that W does not include old rusty shells in what he considered at the time had an influence on his decision to invade Iraq.

 He sent TROOPS to find ‘real’ WMD not a fucking ‘technically correct’ version that were rusting out on junk pikes for 20 years.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Context? WTF? Irrelevant? WTF???



Correll said:


> whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.



In what you call a “debate” leading up to the war the warmonger side provided estimates as to how much “Being Greeted as Liberators” was gonna cost? 

Here is an example of what the warmongering side pushed with their enthusiasm for invading Iraq:

*** In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 15 years ago, one factor in the debate was the notion that the the war would almost pay for itself. 





__





						Redirect Notice
					





					www.google.com
				




“The oil revenue of that country could bring between $50 [billion] and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years,” Paul Wolfowitz, then the U.S deputy secretary of defense, told a congressional panel in March 2003. “We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”  ***

And now after the fact you you want to impose a ban on criticizing the warmonger’s cost over-run of $6.9 trillion. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> It is when those who Consider the astronomical cost of the war in lives and dollars to be a success.



You want us to call a cost-overrun of $7 trillion (DJT numbers) that killed half a million Iraqis a success. 



Correll said:


> Nope. DIscussing the scale of the stakes is not relevant to discussing the fact that we had the national discussion and your side failed to make it's case.






Correll said:


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




How about discussing the corrupt push for war In THE FUCKING CONTEXT of all the death and maiming it caused and the horrendous failure to predict the anticipated cost instead of your stupid notion that the warmongers won the debate; goodnight. 

That is one of the most stupid of the many stupid things you say.



**** "[Congressional Budget Office] estimates a price tag of $14 billion for the war itself and $8 billion to $10 billion a month, for an unspecified period, after hostilities cease," Pethokoukis and Benjamin wrote in 2003.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/p...timated-costs-and-price-tag-of-the-iraq-warSo why 

The Bush administration estimated the war would cost $50 to $60 billion, including the costs of reconstruction and clean up. As of 2013, the Cost of War Project estimates the war has cost $1.7 trillion—nearly 30 times the pre-war estimate. That cost doesn't factor in future costs of veterans' care, which push the total to more than $2.1 trillion. The Veterans Administration spending related to Iraq—which totals $45 billion—is almost as much as the Bush administration's overall cost estimate. ****


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The party that has an opinion that is wholly dependent on an obvious lie is a liar.
> 
> 
> For example your opinion that SH did not cooperate with the 1441 inspectors that is based on your flat out lie that SH continued to “poke the bear” is a lie.
> ...



I refuse to believe you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I asked you specifically when SH ‘poked the bear’ after 1441 was passed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You poke the bear long enough, and it just stopping, is not enough. 

You do realize that, right? YOu are just playing silly games now, right?


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. SH violated nothing after 1441 was passed. W violated 1441 when he attacked to disarm Iraq violently.
> 
> Correll was not a UN inspector at the time. His conclusion that SH was not cooperating means nothing and he is a liar.




Nonsensical gibberish.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You said our troops found what they were looking for when they came up with some rusty old junkyard artillery shells that were classified as chemical weapons and Correll informed us that the old junk pile shells are technically considered WMD.
> 
> But W says They were not what he sent the troops to look for.




Once President Bush sent policy, it was not longer just his opinion that mattered. The search for WMDs, were formal AMERICAN policy and the weapons found technically meet that the search was completed. 


Your denial of this simple FACT, is just you revealing once again your lack of good faith.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll do you agree that struth knows why Senator Biden voted to authorize military force against Iraq?




I certainly agree that normal people do not  make decisions based on single reasons. Only someone deeply autistic or completely ignorant could think otherwise.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Quit the dishonesty.  I’ve mentioned my full support on his decision take out the Taliban after 911. He just should have stuck with the war on terror against the nation state that support the terrorists that attacked us.




But now you are talking like his is an Authority on what words mean, more so than dictionaries.


That is a whole new level of respect. Which is only of course, because now he agrees with you.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That’s another format complaint. What is wrong with the way I used the word according to what it means?
> 
> Everything I say is tied to context. My facts are always tied to context.
> 
> ...




You are ignoring the massive numbers of times when you have ignored context. You are being insanely dishonest. INSANELY.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar..He is not being literal when he goes beyond:
> 
> They found WMD in Iraq.
> 
> ...




IF President Bush, wanted to specify which WMDs he was searching for, when he crafted his policy, he should have done so. 

But, he did not. He crafted the policy and when it was enacted, it became AMERCIAN POLICY, not just his. At that point he ceased being the Judge of what meant it or did not. 


ANY American is fully empowered now, to say whether or not, meeting the literal letter of the policy is good enough for them, or not. 


If you were not autistic, you would be able to understand this.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Context? WTF? Irrelevant? WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry. Your death porn whining about the dead, is kind of disgusting considering that you have admitted that that is not the reason you opposed the war. 


You have admitted that you accept the concept of collateral damage. It was only the lack of...


well, I'm not going to try to paraphrase your position because no matter what I say, you will whine like a faggot over some minor sematic point. 


BUT, your reason for opposing the war was NOT THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE, so your whining about it is a LIE.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> You have admitted that you accept the concept of collateral damage.



In a defensive war you moron. The Iraq invasion was a war of choice when there was no connect to the September 2011 terrorist attacks. Again you ignore  context.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Sorry. Your death porn whining about the dead, is kind of disgusting considering that you have admitted that that is not the reason you opposed the war.



No response to the content of the subject post. Just another bitch about format as yuh distort my position on collateral damage. 

I must assume you agree that a $7 trillion cost overrun combined with the incompetence at nation building that killed Half a million Iraqis is a bad thing and should not be referred to as a success. 

You did not respond to the point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> At that point he ceased being the Judge of what meant it or did not.



Such fantastic bullshit you can pull out if your as you bumbling idiot. 

He judged it you bleeping moron:

President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and 'Nothing' to Do With 9/11
STORYAUGUST 22, 2006 

the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> ANY American is fully empowered now, to say whether or not, meeting the literal letter of the policy is good enough for them, or not.



Fully empowered ????? You are a moron posting such nonsense. 

Are you vaccinated?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> I refuse to believe you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.



Where is you evidence that SH poked the bear after 1441? You are a liar since you hsve nothing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> You poke the bear long enough, and it just stopping, is not enough.



So he stopped. Is that your answer warmonger?


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> In a defensive war you moron. The Iraq invasion was a war of choice when there was no connect to the September 2011 terrorist attacks. Again you ignore  context.




Really? You only accept collateral damage in cases on defensive war? Then ALL the talk of the details of Bush's actions and the UN inspectors, was irrelevant to you, because no matter what, you were against the war based on the principle of Defensive War.


Man, that was kind of a dick move on your  part to spend so much time talking about shit that you didn't really give a damn about. 


Lincoln. His war was not defensive. He could have easily let the South go, and had peace. FDR, if he had not waged economic warfare on Japan, he could have sat out WWII.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No response to the content of the subject post. Just another bitch about format as yuh distort my position on collateral damage.
> 
> I must assume you agree that a $7 trillion cost overrun combined with the incompetence at nation building that killed Half a million Iraqis is a bad thing and should not be referred to as a success.
> 
> You did not respond to the point.




When you  post a post that is stuffed full of crap, that is on you. 


I addressed what stood out as most "relevant" to me.


I made ONE point. You choose to not address it.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Such fantastic bullshit you can pull out if your as you bumbling idiot.
> 
> He judged it you bleeping moron:
> 
> ...




Sure. He judged it. He has a right to do that. You cite him because he, in this case agrees with you.

Struth DISAGREES.


He is technically correct.


That you cannot admit that, nor respect it, is a flaw with you.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Fully empowered ????? You are a moron posting such nonsense.
> 
> Are you vaccinated?




Wow. You are really desperate to distract from how badly you are losing.


TWO WORDS, and I can change you from a pathetic hate mongering troll, into a real advocate for Peace. 


You could really contribute to pushing back against the next possible war. 


But, you don't care. Because you are not really anti-war. You are just anti-American.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> So he stopped. Is that your answer warmonger?




I don't really care if he stopped or not. I care that he played brinksmanship games for over a decade and looked to be planning to play it for the rest of his life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't really care if he stopped or not. I care that he played brinksmanship games for over a decade and looked to be planning to play it for the rest of his life.



You don’t care that SH’s threat risk to our national security was reduced to nothing when he stopped poking the bear and was cooperating with the 1441 inspections on W’s request and terns. 

I know you don’t care. You don’t care that W’s invasion and incompetent occupation caused half a million Iraqis to die. 

YES you don’t care. That’s the point. You don’t care. And you wonder why normal people would understand that you are warmongering racist and religious bigot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> He is technically correct.
> 
> That you cannot admit that,



I said he is technically correct. So you are a liar.  

When he says more than the technically correct observation that WMD  was found at that point he is lying. 

You won’t respond to the point. 

With you it’s the points you avoid and run from that proves you are a liar a moron and a racist religious bigot who could care less that a very bad decision obviously based on lies caused half a million Iraqis to die when they were no threat to the US or the region.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You don’t care that SH’s threat risk to our national security was reduced to nothing when he stopped poking the bear and was cooperating with the 1441 inspections on W’s request and terns.
> 
> I know you don’t care. You don’t care that W’s invasion and incompetent occupation caused half a million Iraqis to die.
> 
> YES you don’t care. That’s the point. You don’t care. And you wonder why normal people would understand that you are warmongering racist and religious bigot.




MMmm,  funny how you ADDED shit to the statement, AND then based on teh shit you added, then launched new attacks on me.


Pretty standard for you.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I said he is technically correct. So you are a liar.
> 
> When he says more than the technically correct observation that WMD  was found at that point he is lying.
> 
> ...




Sorry, when you bury your points, under mounds of partisan bullshit, sometimes i miss them.


You could stop doing that. But, the partisan bullshit is the point of this for you, so you won't.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> TWO WORDS, and I can change you



You are not a man of peace. You cannot teach peace. You just admitted that SH stopped poking the bear after 1441 was being enforced. 

At the time you had several months to make a risk assessment to our national security as it become obvious to the majority of Americans that the peaceful inspectors was the way to eliminate the threat of WMD from SH’s hands. 

But as you say you didn’t care about threat and don’t care now. 

You prefer war to peace.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't really care if he stopped or not.



if you don’t care if SH stopped ir not it’s not an assumption that you don’t care about what was going on concurrent when he stopped.



NotfooledbyW said:


> You don’t care that SH’s threat risk to our national security was reduced to nothing when he stopped poking the bear and was cooperating with the 1441 inspections on W’s request and terns.





Correll said:


> funny how you ADDED shit to the statement,



Does that mean that you care that SH’s threat risk to our national security was reduced to nothing when he stopped poking the bear and was cooperating with the 1441 inspections? 

Explain your latest piss and moan about format.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are not a man of peace. You cannot teach peace. You just admitted that SH stopped poking the bear after 1441 was being enforced.
> 
> At the time you had several months to make a risk assessment to our national security as it become obvious to the majority of Americans that the peaceful inspectors was the way to eliminate the threat of WMD from SH’s hands.
> 
> ...




You are confused on so many levels. Your questions are not really questions, so when I answer them, you fail to get the real information contained there in. 

Your attack on me, is just a distraction from the FACT that you want to avoid my TWO WORDS, because you fear them.


You fear that I might be able to point out how you could be more effective. 

Because, you don't want to be effective. You just want to spread hate and division.


----------



## Correll (Aug 5, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> if you don’t care if SH stopped ir not it’s not an assumption that you don’t care about what was going on concurrent when he stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Do you recall what was the goal that I concluded was a valid reason for war?  Hint: It had nothing to do with these details that you love to wallow in, like a pig in shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> Do you recall what was the goal that I concluded was a valid reason for war?



Your conclusion was never a valid reason to start a war. The public was led to believe that SH in possession of WMD was            such a potential threat that either the dictator had to be disarmed peacefully or be removed by military force. The facts are and were clear at that time that Iraq was being disarmed more peacefully than ever, but W could not allow that to happen so he decided to disarm Iraq violently. 

And all that violence turned out to be unnecessary. 

There was no push by the warmongering elites in the Administration from W on down to try to convince the public that nation building a democracy in IRAQ was an objective that could be justified outside the actual threat that removing: separating WMD from SH would cure. 

Your delusion that there was a push to build a democracy justification on a par with eliminating a real potential threat is great fun to watch. You are a fool
If you think you’ve success manufactured a justification after the fact because it never was proposed before the fact and there were no WMD being hidden from inspectors in IRAQ When W invaded.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> you want to avoid my TWO WORDS,



Why do you prefer war over peace. There is no excuse if you thought at the time that  Iraq was not cooperating with the 1441 inspectors.


----------



## Correll (Aug 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your conclusion was never a valid reason to start a war. ....




I didn't ask you if you agreed with it. I asked you if you remembered what it was. 


Dude. Seriously. It is impossible to have a real conversation with you. I was trying to make a point, and you  just went off on a tangent. 

If you didn't remember, just fucking admit it and ask. 


What the fuck is wrong with you? 


You were making a point. My point was to address it. Now, your point, is just gone. And you don't seem to care about that.


So, was everything you were saying before just shit? It seems that way. You made NO effort to keep the discussion on track. Indeed, you made effort to make sure to bury your own point.


You just around so much and the only thing consistent, is that you are constantly spewing anti-American hate and division onto the screen.


----------



## Correll (Aug 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why do you prefer war over peace. There is no excuse if you thought at the time that  Iraq was not cooperating with the 1441 inspectors.




I prefer peace over war. That you think otherwise, is just you being stupid. 


Seriously. I mean, all this talk and you didn't catch that? You have no ability to discern the internal world of others. 


You really need to ask more questions and really, REALLY, work on actually LISTENING TO THE ANSWERS, 


instead of being a troll.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> I prefer peace over war.



Your argument here says otherwise. Were you angry and upset when it was confirmed by the warmonger Administration that the WMD used to justify the war was not found by the invading army?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There was no push by the warmongering elites in the Administration from W on down to try to convince the public that nation building a democracy in IRAQ was an objective that could be justified





Correll said:


> I didn't ask you if you agreed with it. I asked you if you remembered what it was.



My point was the only true point to be made about the ‘other’ or your ‘personal’ justification for getting half a million Iraqis killed is that it is not a disagreement. Your personal justification for the war is not valid. The nation building argument for war was not an argument to justify starting a war in the middle of ongoing peaceful inspections. 

It was a condition of necessity and obligation of an invading army that tears down the regime in power of the invaded nation. The invasion was based on separating a high risk dictatorship from its possession of WMD and ONLY that.  

There was no other argument for war. Nation Building was an obligation that had to be met by the invading army only because regime change was falsely determined by W as the ONLY way to disarm IRAQ of suspected lethal WMD stockpiles ongoing production capability. 

And W fucked up that obligation as well. 

There are the facts. There is no disagreement. You live in a make believe world. 


Its no wonder you are a Trump devotee. 

Are you an unvaccinated Trump supporter? 

why won’t you.   healthy kids are dying of COVID more often now? Do you care?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not, do you believe that all differences of opinion means that someone is lying?




No. I believe that a Liar such as yourself will always try to justify their lies by calling it a difference of opinion. That’s why we must seek out and I always try to stick to the facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> It would have been finished when they found the wmds, or documentation that they were destroyed.




Why do you limit the inspections process to only those two outcomes. 

The step following verification of compliance was to set up long term monitoring. So you are wrong. There was no “Finish” to the disarming process after determining there were no ACTIVE WMD manufacturing and stockpiling activities going on so that sanctions could be lifted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> I prefer peace over war.



I’m sure you do. I’m guessing you consider yourself so much more important and valuable than the people of Iraq that you preferred they get some boot up the ass war and you get to keep you couch potato peace. 

They could have had peace and learn their dictatorship didn't have the WMD  that W sent the military to find. And they found none.


----------



## Correll (Aug 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your argument here says otherwise. Were you angry and upset when it was confirmed by the warmonger Administration that the WMD used to justify the war was not found by the invading army?




My argument here is completely within the context of a war that happened historically. 


I don't recall you asking ANY questions about my desire for peace. YOu assumed "bloodthirsty warmonger" and repeatedly dismissed anything and everything I said that contradicted your assumptions.


That is just you being a prick, not me being a warmonger.


----------



## Correll (Aug 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> My point was the only true point to be made about the ‘other’ or your ‘personal’ justification for getting half a million Iraqis killed is that it is not a disagreement. Your personal justification for the war is not valid. The nation building argument for war was not an argument to justify starting a war in the middle of ongoing peaceful inspections.
> 
> .....



your assertions are your personal opinion. That you state them as fact, is just you being a prick. 


Your whining about the dead is unseemly, considering that you have accepted the concept of collateral damage.


----------



## Correll (Aug 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. I believe that a Liar such as yourself will always try to justify their lies by calling it a difference of opinion. That’s why we must seek out and I always try to stick to the facts.




Except I agreed with you that those shells did not mean that the WMDs, were found. 


Did you really forget that "fact" or are you just so reflexively an asshole, that you just had to attack me, even though your attack made no sense?

I try to be consistent in my standards and ways of looking at events, in my search for the Truth.

YOU are the one that is literal and exactly when it serves your purpose to be so, and then changing to a more nuanced and intent based judgement when that works for you better.


----------



## Correll (Aug 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why do you limit the inspections process to only those two outcomes.
> 
> The step following verification of compliance was to set up long term monitoring. So you are wrong. There was no “Finish” to the disarming process after determining there were no ACTIVE WMD manufacturing and stockpiling activities going on so that sanctions could be lifted.




What does it matter? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you that you went back to rehash that?


If you are that bored and have that much time on your hands, ask me what the two words are, that could help you spread peace.


----------



## Correll (Aug 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m sure you do. I’m guessing you consider yourself so much more important and valuable than the people of Iraq that you preferred they get some boot up the ass war and you get to keep you couch potato peace.
> 
> They could have had peace and learn their dictatorship didn't have the WMD  that W sent the military to find. And they found none.




Man. Why are you such an asshole? Nothing I said justified this nonsense from you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> Man. Why are you such an asshole? Nothing I said justified this nonsense from you.




I UNDERSTAND YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE SENSELESS AND UNNECESSARY KILLING OF HALF A MILLION IRAQIS TO LOOK FOR WMD THAT WERE NOT. Don’t feel bad - no one can.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 6, 2021)

Correll said:


> What does it matter?




Your arrogance is a serious problem. 

When you say shit like there were only two options available to the inspectors you need to be straightened out. When you get straightened out I won’t go back to it.


----------



## Correll (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I UNDERSTAND YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE SENSELESS AND UNNECESSARY KILLING OF HALF A MILLION IRAQIS TO LOOK FOR WMD THAT WERE NOT. Don’t feel bad - no one can.




So, you're dropping that shit about me considering myself more important than the Iraqis? How about you admit that was just you being an asshole before we move on?

And, I have spent months here, defending my support of the invasion, and doing a masterful job at it, so for you to state that I can't, is you being completely retarded and delusional. 


Seriously. YOu are nothing but an hate spewing spam bot.


----------



## Correll (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your arrogance is a serious problem.
> 
> When you say shit like there were only two options available to the inspectors you need to be straightened out. When you get straightened out I won’t go back to it.




Fine. In theory* IF *the Saddam had managed to provide convincing documentation of the destruction of the wmds, which he did not do, *AND *managed to deescalate the confrontation with the US, to the point that war did not happen,* AND*, the US managed to maintain the support for the sanctions *AND* the inspectors were allowed to continue their monitoring process, *AND *the American President did not lose faith in them (which he should have)  there is a chance that there would have been an option where the inspectors continued their process. Whoop de FUcking do. 


So, how exactly does that slim chance matter? 


That is not a rhetorical question. I want to hear it explained, in the normal fucking detail you go on about, because the alternative is you admit that you were just being a pedantic asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 7, 2021)

This is a chain of relevant posts on the subject of the 1991 undocumented destruction of Iran-Iraq  war era chemical agents and artillery shells.

You have multiple errors in your logic and arguments we are to be consistent with facts. 


Can you see your errors on your own or do you need me to factually and honestly point them out.


it will prove with regard to Iraq that you strongly prefer war over peace. 



Correll said:


> "Forced by what" exactly? By whom?





NotfooledbyW said:


> The UNSC. W was required to give all the evidence he had to the inspectors. Up to the date of the invasion W said they gave the inspectors all the evidence they had. The inspectors found none of it to be credible. Three more months of indirections would forced W abandon if a claim that he had evidence when he announced his final decision disarm Iraq by killing civilians.





Correll said:


> n interesting assumption. One that I never heard mentioned at the time.
> 
> 
> Oh, well, moot now





Correll said:


> Don't play stupid. We covered that.
> 
> 
> My point stands





Correll said:


> I hoped that the loss of civilian life would be minimal. I





Correll said:


> IMO, they would have said anything to avoid war. Thus, they were not credible.





Correll said:


> They were playing games , trying to avoid a war.





Correll said:


> I don't recall giving it any thought. I probably just figured that he was in a waiting it out mode. It seems unlikely for him to try to manufacture significant weapons while inspectors are searching for shit.
> 
> Regardless, my point stands. The inspectors were not disarming him, they were going though the motions trying to use process to prevent a war.





Correll said:


> The inspectors would have said anything to avoid war, perhaps with the limitation of covering their asses.





NotfooledbyW said:


> 4. You again, hold President Bush, fully responsible for ALL teh deaths, thus letting everyone else off the hook.



NOTE: 4. (Above) is a s diversionary point made by Correll



NotfooledbyW said:


> He is. There were no hostilities from the Iraqi side when W started the invasion occupation and insurgency. Can you dispute that?





Correll said:


> I don't really care if he stopped or not.





Correll said:


> Except I agreed with you that those shells did not mean that the WMDs, were found.








Correll said:


> *IF *the Saddam had managed to provide convincing documentation of the destruction of the wmds,



SH had no obligation to produce something impossible to produce. The issue applied to the ancient WMD that you said was not what W used to justify starting a war to find WMD.


----------



## Correll (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> This is a chain of relevant posts on the subject of the 1991 undocumented destruction of Iran-Iraq  war era chemical agents and artillery shells.
> 
> You have multiple errors in your logic and arguments we are to be consistent with facts.
> 
> ...




Make your point, if it is not one we have dealt with many times before. Make it concisely, and without the partisan shit or whining about the collateral damage.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> Make your point, if i



I made a point - You didn’t bother to read it. Follow the chain of posts if you believe language and words have meaning. 

Maybe you will figure something out about how  to really prevent another Iraq debacle.


----------



## Correll (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I made a point - You didn’t bother to read it. Follow the chain of posts if you believe language and words have meaning.
> 
> Maybe you will figure something out about hue to really prevent another Iraq debacle.




You asked if I needed my "errors" pointed out. My point is obviously, I do. Because I see no problem with my chain of logic or my various positions you posted excerpts from.


I really hope this isn't one of those retarded things you do, where you make conflate related issues and then attack me for having different positions on related issues, as though it was having CONFLICTING positions on one issue, 


when it isn't.


Because it would be retarded to spend as much time as you did, if it was that stupid. 


So, drop the shit where you pretend that it is impossible for anyone to disagree with you. And make your point so I can address it. 


AND like I said, save the partisan shit and the disgusting way you use dead children for ammo for your partisan attacks.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 7, 2021)

Correll asked me  If SH …   managed to deescalate the confrontation with the US,




Correll said:


> Fine. In theory* IF *the Saddam had managed to provide convincing documentation of the destruction of the wmds, which he did not do, *AND *managed to deescalate the confrontation with the US,



The IRAQI side actual did do everything in its power to deescalate the confrontation. 

And reports regarding the ancient WMD were very public;

U.N. destroying mustard gas shells Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Posted: 10:02 AM EST (1502 GMT)

The U.N. inspectors stressed at the time that the ammunition was expected to be there and not a sign of an active chemical weapons program.

Previous inspection teams destroyed thousands of chemical weapons shells and agents at al-Muthanna, according to U.N. officials.





__





						CNN.com - U.N. destroying mustard gas shells - Feb. 12, 2003
					





					www.cnn.com
				







NotfooledbyW said:


> The issue applied to the ancient WMD that you said was not what W used to justify starting a war to find WMD.





Correll said:


> Make it concisely, and without the partisan shit or whining about the collateral damage.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> I see no problem with my chain of logic or my various positions you posted excerpts from.




Of course you don’t. You spend most of your time obfuscating to avoid dealing with facts.  That is how your arguments are always flawed and incompetent.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> SH had no obligation to produce something impossible to produce.



Can you produce something that backs the idea that SH was obligated to produce something that was impossible to produce that you posed in your absurd hypothetical question? 





Correll said:


> Fine. In theory* IF *the Saddam had managed to provide convincing documentation of the destruction of the wmds, which he did not do, *AND *managed to deescalate the confrontation with the US, to the point that war did not happen,* AND*, the US managed to maintain the support for the sanctions *AND* the inspectors were allowed to continue their monitoring process, *AND *the American President did not lose faith in them (which he should have) there is a chance that there would have been an option where the inspectors continued their process. Whoop de FUcking do.



Or do you agree that you began the question with an illogical unreasonable fake “IF” ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I UNDERSTAND YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE SENSELESS AND UNNECESSARY KILLING OF HALF A MILLION IRAQIS TO LOOK FOR WMD THAT WERE NOT. Don’t feel bad - no one can.





Correll said:


> So, you're dropping that shit about me considering myself more important than the Iraqis?



Because you cannot defend your support for killing all those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis without lying and pushing disinformation and pleading ignorance the fact that yuh keep doing it leaves the impression that you consider yourself and the members of the tribe still with you in that regard more important than the people you support killing.


----------



## Correll (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The IRAQI side actual did do everything in its power to deescalate the confrontation.




Yeah, that's utter nonsense. I mean seriously. 


Shooting at American planes? Supporting terrorism? 


Why are you so anti-American?


----------



## Correll (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Of course you don’t. You spend most of your time obfuscating to avoid dealing with facts.  That is how your arguments are always flawed and incompetent.




You asked if I needed to have my alleged "errors" pointed out. I have told you I do.

Now you are just talking shit for some reason.

Is it because you tried to point them out, and then when you saw your argument on the screen, you realized it was retarded?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> Shooting at American planes? Supporting terrorism?




He stopped after 1441. So you are lying.


----------



## Correll (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Can you produce something that backs the idea that SH was obligated to produce something that was impossible to produce that you posed in your absurd hypothetical question?
> 
> Or do you agree that you began the question with an illogical unreasonable fake “IF” ?




1. I've repeatedly explained my reasoning on that. Your pretense that I have not, is you playing a stupid rhetorical game. 

2. I conceded a point. yes, there was an additional option. SO WHAT THE FUCK DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO THIS DISCUSSION OR ANYTHING? 


You made a big fucking deal out of it, like it was a big fucking deal. SO, now explain what is the BIG FUCKING DEAL?


----------



## Correll (Aug 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Because you cannot defend your support for killing all those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis without lying and pushing disinformation and pleading ignorance the fact that yuh keep doing it leaves the impression that you consider yourself and the members of the tribe still with you in that regard more important than the people you support killing.




You seem to have a very confused idea about what war is. 


A man that supports war as a policy, is not saying that he considered his enemies less than him. Though that often follows as a coping mechanism to deal with the reality of killing your enemies.


Supporting war as a policy is an belief in a conflict of interests between two (or more) nations that needs to be resolved though force. It says nothing about the moral value of the lives of the other side.


My father and most of his brothers were WWII vets. Today, one of my best friends is ethnically German.  My wife is half Italian. 


You're making all kind of, really, really, REALLY, stupid assumptions and then being a complete asshole based on your stupid assumptions.


Seriously, NOt. There is something wrong with you. You should try to be not like this. You can be a lefty, without being a complete asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> A man that supports war as a policy,



What policy? Its ok to intentionally kill Muslims but hope it’s not way too many to give their survivors a better life in a liberal western style democracy? 

That argument? That policy? You are quite the warmonger when you support that policy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Biden or Cheney? 


Correll said:


> Supporting war as a policy is an belief in a conflict of interests between two (or more) nations that needs to be resolved though force.



There were two primary competing policies going on during the seven month ‘national debate’ phase that began leading into September 2002 and ended on March 17 2003 effectively unresolved.  Unfortunately the CHENEY POLICY was chosen in the end by the decision maker. 

So:

On March 17 2003 as you watched W The Decider announce to the world that the UN Inspectors had to get out of Iraq because the US Military was about to begin its Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe War invasion policy, did you agree with Dick Cheney to take the regime down in order to disarm Iraq without any UN support or did you agree with Joe Biden who says Bush should have waited to get full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence before invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and to have the world’s full support and commitment for the enormous task ahead to nation build Iraq into a successful democracy?

I’d like to have you on the record regarding the anti/UN Blitzkrieg ‘do it now’ Iraq invasion policy or the Biden ‘slow it down’ get the UN on board in order to resolve the conflict of interest regarding WMD between Iraq and most of the world’s nations. 

DId you support Cheney or Biden policy at the time?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

struth said:


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



Does your opposition to massive ground troops and nation building translate into non-support of the chosen invasion war policy by massive ground troops to be greeted as liberators and then leave the nation building to Iran and the Iraqis to be paid for by oil revenue. 

If you support the Cheney Wolfowitz Iraq invasion policy could you please tell us what changed your mind about using a few Special Forces instead of tens of thousands of boots on the ground?


----------



## struth (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Does your opposition to massive ground troops and nation building translate into non-support of the chosen invasion war policy by massive ground troops to be greeted as liberators and then leave the nation building to Iran and the Iraqis to be paid for by oil revenue.
> 
> If you support the Cheney Wolfowitz Iraq invasion policy could you please tell us what changed your mind about using a few Special Forces instead of tens of thousands of boots on the ground?


huh?  i totally disapprove of obama and xiden turning iraq over to terrorist and iran

we should of continued to help rebuild the country we liberated.  

That move by Xiden and Obama was horrible and hand/has lasting consequences.

We very much would of had a different landscape in the ME had they not been in charge

as stated, yes i would have attempted first to use special forces to take out saddam and his inner circle.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

struth said:


> i totally disapprove of obama and xiden turning iraq over to terrorist and iran


 

When was Iraq “turned over” to terrorists? 

What does”turned over to terrorists” actually mean? 

Since regime change in 2003 the subsequent regimes in Iraq have never ever been  taken over or controlled by terrorists.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What policy? Its ok to intentionally kill Muslims but hope it’s not way too many to give their survivors a better life in a liberal western style democracy?
> 
> That argument? That policy? You are quite the warmonger when you support that policy.



Stripped of your spin, and you being an asshole, and you are still missing the point. 

And no, that is not being a "warmonger". That is basically what we did both to Germany and Japan.  

The goal was not to "give the survivors a better life" you fag drama queen, but to push back in the War of Ideas, against Islamic Fundamentalism. 


Why do you find it necessary to lie about my positions before you address them?


Doesn't that tell you something about yourself and your position, that you have to lie about mine?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

struth said:


> as stated, yes i would have attempted first to use special forces to take out saddam and his inner circle.



Therefore you wanted Iraq war policy in your mind to be to liberate Iraq with a very clean and cheap limited number of Special Ops to kill SH and Sons and have nothing to do with the chaos that would follow and therefore absolutely nothing to do with helping ……


struth said:


> rebuild the country we liberated.



I’m wondering if Correll sees the fallacy in your ability to think and participate in a reasonable discussion about why struth supports the original architects of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to disarm Iraq if WMD that turned out not to be there.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Biden or Cheney?
> 
> 
> There were two primary competing policies going on during the seven month ‘national debate’ phase that began leading into September 2002 and ended on March 17 2003 effectively unresolved.  Unfortunately the CHENEY POLICY was chosen in the end by the decision maker.
> ...




I'm already on the record repeatedly about that. You are trying the circular debating tactic again. Knock off the shit, wally.  


The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives. 


That is just you, AGAIN, (still?) making assumptions and then being an asshole based on those assumptions. 


And that seems to be your primary goal here. To gin up reasons for you to be an asshole and spread hate and division.


I repeat, with TWO WORDS, I can teach you to be a far more effective speaker, in spreading your anti-war or pro-peace ideas. 


I have no even CHALLENGED you to ask or any such ego based thing. I have mentioned it, and you don't care.


Because, you goal is does not have ANYTHING to do with war or peace or even the lives of the dead that you pretend to care so much about.


Your goal is to spread hate and division.


I have repeatedly asked you why. You refuse to address it at all. 


Your motives, must be very dark, if as bad as you look already, you are still afraid to open up as to why.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is basically what we did both to Germany and Japan.



When you convince me that Iraq was the most powerful military in earth and was on a path of world domination  or that Iraq had a “Pearl Harbor” moment in March 2003 then we can talk about Germany and Japan.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> I'm already on the record repeatedly about that



No you are not. You are a liar.


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

struth said:


> huh?  i totally disapprove of obama and xiden turning iraq over to terrorist and iran
> 
> we should of continued to help rebuild the country we liberated.
> 
> ...



Saddam was NO threat to the US or his neighbors. Iraq was  crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions. Israel wanted the Iraq war. Read CLEAN BREAK STRATEGY.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Therefore you wanted Iraq war policy in your mind to be to liberate Iraq with a very clean and cheap limited number of Special Ops to kill SH and Sons and have nothing to do with the chaos that would follow and therefore absolutely nothing to do with helping ……
> 
> 
> I’m wondering if Correll sees the fallacy in your ability to think and participate in a reasonable discussion about why struth supports the original architects of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to disarm Iraq if WMD that turned out not to be there.




Dude. Don't try to be cute. YOu suck at it. You suck at a lot of shit. You have a point, you need to practice making it clearly and concisely, with as little added bullshit as possible. 


I have no idea what stupid "gotcha" you thing you stumbled on above. Just say it. Or not. Don't dance around it like a little ballet princess.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> When you convince me that Iraq was the most powerful military in earth and was on a path of world domination  or that Iraq had a “Pearl Harbor” moment in March 2003 then we can talk about Germany and Japan.




The point we were discussing was about changing a nation into something more useful to us as a goal of a war. 


Nothing in that required them to be of a certain scale of threat. That was irrelevant to the point. 


That was obvious. You are obviously using a stupid excuse to avoid addressing the historical evidence I used to support my point.


My point stands. You act as though my reason for supporting the war was stupid and evul, yet it is something we have done, repeatedly, though war, in the past, with excellent results. 


Are you willing to address that seriously and honestly now, or do you want to play some more stupid games?


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No you are not. You are a liar.




I'm already on the record repeatedly about that. You are trying the circular debating tactic again. Knock off the shit, wally.


The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives.


That is just you, AGAIN, (still?) making assumptions and then being an asshole based on those assumptions.


And that seems to be your primary goal here. To gin up reasons for you to be an asshole and spread hate and division.


I repeat, with TWO WORDS, I can teach you to be a far more effective speaker, in spreading your anti-war or pro-peace ideas.


I have no even CHALLENGED you to ask or any such ego based thing. I have mentioned it, and you don't care.


Because, you goal is does not have ANYTHING to do with war or peace or even the lives of the dead that you pretend to care so much about.


Your goal is to spread hate and division.


I have repeatedly asked you why. You refuse to address it at all.


Your motives, must be very dark, if as bad as you look already, you are still afraid to open up as to why.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> Saddam was NO threat to the US or his neighbors. Iraq was  crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions. Israel wanted the Iraq war. Read CLEAN BREAK STRATEGY.




Irrelevant to every point that he made. Why did you even reply?


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> The point we were discussing was about changing a nation into something more useful to us as a goal of a war.
> 
> 
> Nothing in that required them to be of a certain scale of threat. That was irrelevant to the point.
> ...



"The point we were discussing was about changing a nation into something more useful to us as a goal of a war."

That's the soul of the UGLY AMERICAN. So why not attack Scotland or Nigeria?


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Irrelevant to every point that he made. Why did you even reply?



Because I know Iraq and the Middle East. Your reasoning is disgusting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> I'm already on the record repeatedly about that



You are lying. Why are you avoiding answering a question that had not been asked before? 

I need to know because Biden had the more realistic and sensible nation building policy and you say you were really big on nation building at the time.

The Cheney Iraq invasion Policy was to knock out SH along with his army and police. And the result of that would be to be greeted as liberators. The Cheney policy did not need fucking UN support because the secondary policy of nation building was to be no big deal and paid by Iraq’s oil sales. The Kurds Shiites and Sunnis and Christians in iraq would all come together and embrace a liberal Jeffersonian representative democracy.

The Cheney policy had no anticipation of a high cost and five year plus battle to do nation building while fighting a deadly insurgency. 

You have indicated that you anticipated a high cost to do your policy of taking out SH primarily in order to do the grand scheme of nation building because Iraq was a good candidate for that. 

So I want you on record that you support and still support Cheney’s Iraq invasion policy as opposed to Biden’s prewar argument against the notion that liberating Iraq would be as easy as Cheney was selling. 



To refresh your memory:

*** Host Tim Russert asked whether "we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney replied: "I disagree." 

*** He wouldn't say how many troops were needed, but he added that "to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2005/06/21/how-cheney-fooled-himself/02e5a6a2-81ff-47ed-a713-6a2e0b68810f/
		


*** Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

*** Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."


Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"
Cheney: "They have so far." And the vice president concluded: "I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The Cheney Iraq invasion Policy was to knock out SH along with his army and police. And the result of that would be to be greeted as liberators. The Cheney policy did not need fucking UN support because the secondary policy of nation building was to be no big deal and paid by Iraq’s oil sales. The Kurds Shiites and Sunnis and Christians in iraq would all come together and embrace a liberal Jeffersonian representative democracy.
> 
> The Cheney policy had no anticipation of a high cost and five year plus battle to do nation building while fighting a deadly insurgency.
> 
> ...



Neither Cheney nor Dubya knew anything about the ME or the oil business. Haliburton hired Cheney to lobby his Washington contacts.. They wanted sanctions lifted on Iraq, Libya and the Stans. .. an EXCELLENT idea by the way.

The first rule of the oil biz.. is that the oil business HATES a war zone. Production crashed in Iraq for 7-8 years after Dubya's adventure.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 8, 2021)

The Banker said:


> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.


Ron Paul.

The establishment takes down anyone who opposes status quo.
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Cynthia McKinney
Bernie Sanders
Tulsi Gabbard
Nina Turner

Now the big money and propaganda is going after AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> *** Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
> 
> *** Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.


----------



## struth (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> Saddam was NO threat to the US or his neighbors. Iraq was  crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions. Israel wanted the Iraq war. Read CLEAN BREAK STRATEGY.


he literally tried to kill Bush Sr.  That’s a threat


----------



## struth (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Therefore you wanted Iraq war policy in your mind to be to liberate Iraq with a very clean and cheap limited number of Special Ops to kill SH and Sons and have nothing to do with the chaos that would follow and therefore absolutely nothing to do with helping ……
> 
> 
> I’m wondering if Correll sees the fallacy in your ability to think and participate in a reasonable discussion about why struth supports the original architects of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to disarm Iraq if WMD that turned out not to be there.2011


when he pulled out


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

struth said:


> he literally tried to kill Bush Sr.  That’s a threat



LOLOL.. No he didn't. Dubya was LYING.

So, Did Saddam Try to Kill Bush's Dad? - Antiwar.com Original








						So, Did Saddam Try to Kill Bush's Dad? - Antiwar.com Original
					

Now that President George W. Bush's allegations about former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and ambitious weapons programs have been - Jim Lobe for Antiwar.com Original




					original.antiwar.com
				



But a closer look at the 11-year-old plot, particularly in light of the findings by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), the special team of experts that spent 15 months investigating Baghdad’s WMD programs and found they were all dismantled in 1991 shortly after the end of the Gulf War, may now be warranted, especially if Bush is still laboring under the impression that Saddam “tried to kill [his] dad.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

P F Tinmore said:


>



Are you saying Cheney is nuts? What is nuts about presenting the facts?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What is nuts about presenting the facts?


Was Cheney stating facts. It appears not.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> "The point we were discussing was about changing a nation into something more useful to us as a goal of a war."
> 
> That's the soul of the UGLY AMERICAN. So why not attack Scotland or Nigeria?




Tell me a nation that you think has not used that or worse war polices. 

Or admit that  you are just a stupid faggot.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> Because I know Iraq and the Middle East. Your reasoning is disgusting.




I there was a problem with his reasoning, why did you not address his reasoning, instead of bring up unrelated stupid shit?

Are you just a monkey throwing random shit?


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are lying. ....



No, I;m not. Don't be a dishonest asshole.


I'm already on the record repeatedly about that. You are trying the circular debating tactic again. Knock off the shit, wally.


The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives.


That is just you, AGAIN, (still?) making assumptions and then being an asshole based on those assumptions.


And that seems to be your primary goal here. To gin up reasons for you to be an asshole and spread hate and division.


I repeat, with TWO WORDS, I can teach you to be a far more effective speaker, in spreading your anti-war or pro-peace ideas.


I have no even CHALLENGED you to ask or any such ego based thing. I have mentioned it, and you don't care.


Because, you goal is does not have ANYTHING to do with war or peace or even the lives of the dead that you pretend to care so much about.


Your goal is to spread hate and division.


I have repeatedly asked you why. You refuse to address it at all.


Your motives, must be very dark, if as bad as you look already, you are still afraid to open up as to why.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> No, I;m not



Of course you are. It would be simpler if you just answered as a nation builder warmonger why you did not support the Biden argument that was focused on the difficulty to expect after knocking out the regime. 

Why would you support the greeted as liberators policy nation building when you say you expected it to be difficult.


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> I there was a problem with his reasoning, why did you not address his reasoning, instead of bring up unrelated stupid shit?
> 
> Are you just a monkey throwing random shit?



When it was clear that Dubya was going to invade Iraq I resigned the Republican party after 35 years. It was an insane foreign policy blunder and a disaster in the making. Completely unnecessary.. 

In 1998 Saddam's reserves were in terrible shape. He begged the US to let an oil services company in  to do updates and reserve mgmt before they were ruined forever. The cost was NOTHING compared to Bush's idiot war.. and we basically had Saddam over a barrel. Those clowns didn't know anything about the oil business or the Middle East. 

Dubya screwed up his oil venture in Qatar which was damned near impossible to do unless he was drunk or snorting coke.

Israel wanted Saddam gone.. Read Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Of course you are. It would be simpler if you just answered as a nation builder warmonger why you did not support the Biden argument that was focused on the difficulty to expect after knocking out the regime.
> 
> Why would you support the greeted as liberators policy nation building when you say you expected it to be difficult.





I'm already on the record repeatedly about that. You are trying the circular debating tactic again. Knock off the shit, wally.


The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives.


That is just you, AGAIN, (still?) making assumptions and then being an asshole based on those assumptions.


And that seems to be your primary goal here. To gin up reasons for you to be an asshole and spread hate and division.


I repeat, with TWO WORDS, I can teach you to be a far more effective speaker, in spreading your anti-war or pro-peace ideas.


I have no even CHALLENGED you to ask or any such ego based thing. I have mentioned it, and you don't care.


Because, you goal is does not have ANYTHING to do with war or peace or even the lives of the dead that you pretend to care so much about.


Your goal is to spread hate and division.


I have repeatedly asked you why. You refuse to address it at all.


Your motives, must be very dark, if as bad as you look already, you are still afraid to open up as to why.


----------



## struth (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> LOLOL.. No he didn't. Dubya was LYING.
> 
> So, Did Saddam Try to Kill Bush's Dad? - Antiwar.com Original
> 
> ...



Bush didn't conclude that Saddam tried to kill his father...the Clinton Admin, Kuwait and the UN did...why do you lie? USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> 3. I did not have those numbers, but I, of course considered the cost of the war. That is a weird question.



Did you consider both Cheney and Biden’s widely differing assessment on the cost of reconstruction after taking SH down? 





Correll said:


> I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble.




Does that mean Cheney was wrong and Biden was right? 



Correll said:


> Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.



Did you accept Cheney’s judgment that Building a functioning Muslim Democracy was going to be a cinch after being greeted as liberators? 



Correll said:


> IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.



But Cheney told you we didn’t have to do nation building or maintain civil order after knocking off SH. nothing. We would be greeted as liberators and he talked to Iraqis who were going to do the nation building on their own. That was Iraq invasion policy -right? 



Correll said:


> Do you think that GWBush thought taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic nation was the right policy for America and the World?



No. It was based on flawed reasoning and dishonest advertising to the general public. 




Correll said:


> . You are trying the circular debating tactic again.



Piss and moan all you want about format all you want. You need to answer the question - Cheney or Biden? 

As a nation builder wannabee warmonger who knew it would not be easy I want to see it in writing that you happily followed Cheney into the Iraq abyss. Or you really listening to the wiser Biden??


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> When it was clear that Dubya was going to invade Iraq I resigned the Republican party after 35 years. It was an insane foreign policy blunder and a disaster in the making. Completely unnecessary..
> 
> In 1998 Saddam's reserves were in terrible shape. He begged the US to let an oil services company in  to do updates and reserve mgmt before they were ruined forever. The cost was NOTHING compared to Bush's idiot war.. and we basically had Saddam over a barrel. Those clowns didn't know anything about the oil business or the Middle East.
> 
> ...




Yeah, struth wasn't talking about any of that shit, when you decided to "reply" to him.

So, I ask AGAIN, what was the supposed "problem" with his reasoning, that you felt so strongly about, but could not.... even address?


I think you are just throwing shit against a wall, like a monkey.


Ok. You want to talk about the CLEAN BREAK STRATEGY. 

Tell us why you think it is important first.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

struth said:


> Bush didn't conclude that Saddam tried to kill his father...the Clinton Admin, Kuwait and the UN did...why do you lie? USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report




Liberals lie. It is a fundamental part of being liberals. Indeed,  is a tautology to say that liberals lie. 




			https://www.google.com/search?q=tautology+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS913US914&oq=tatoulo&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0i10i433l4j0i10l5.10872j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
		


tau·tol·o·gy

_noun_


the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., _they arrived one after the other in succession_ ).


----------



## struth (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Did you consider both Cheney and Biden’s widely differing assessment on the cost of reconstruction after taking SH down?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i consider Xiden’s former coworker in the obama admin assessment of xiden whenever i consider xiden and that is he’s been wrong on pretty much every foreign policy decision he’s ever had


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Did you consider both Cheney and Biden’s widely differing assessment on the cost of reconstruction after taking SH down?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Pick one of them, drop the spin shit, and I will answer it fully. 


You are actually edging up on asking a real question. I am proud of you. Sort of. Except it should be normal behavior and it took you months.


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yeah, struth wasn't talking about any of that shit, when you decided to "reply" to him.
> 
> So, I ask AGAIN, what was the supposed "problem" with his reasoning, that you felt so strongly about, but could not.... even address?
> 
> ...



Bibi wanted Saddam gone and Syria isolated and destabilized in 1996.. The Brits began Operation Mass Appeal in 1997 to churn out propaganda and sell the war. 

In 1998 the Dual citizenship signatories of the PNAC tried to push Bill Clinton into invading Iraq.. He was too smart for them.. Bush hired a bunch of them to his cabinet.


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Liberals lie. It is a fundamental part of being liberals. Indeed,  is a tautology to say that liberals lie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not a liberal and Saddam didn't try to kill Papa Bush.. Dubya was pumping out excuses... like the cat ate my homework.. His father disapproved of invading Iraq.

Iraq had been chased out of Kuwait.. That was enough.

It was a very stupid, irresponsible move on Dubya's part, but he sure wanted to be liked by Blair and the Israelis.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are actually edging up on asking a real question



All my questions are real. You are welcome to answer any one of them when you get done pissing and moaning all over this thread.


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> All my questions are real. You are welcome to answer any one of them when you get done pissing and moaning all over this thread.



Correll

*Prince Bandar tried and tried to dissuade Bush from invading Iraq. When he failed, the SAG recalled him to Arabia.*


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam.




Did Gingrich convince you that the Iraq invasion was a failure when he openly began informing the public that it was going to be a failure in December 2003? 


*** FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Well, the war’s a failure in part because the strategy, as I told you on this show in December of ‘03, has been wrong consistently, it’s been a strategy that was far too American. 





__





						MTP Transcript for Dec. 17
					

Newt Gingrich, David Brooks, Tom Friedman




					www.google.com
				




*** Second, it’s a, it’s a failure because the instruments of national power don’t work. And it’s important to understand we all focus on Maliki’s government. The, the Baker-Hamilton Commission reports that out of 1,000 people in the American Embassy, 33 speak Arabic, eight of them fluently. Now, at some point we have to have a national conversation about the fact that, outside of the uniform military, none of the instruments of national power work, and they need to be fundamentally overhauled. This isn’t about policy.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> Bibi wanted Saddam gone and Syria isolated and destabilized in 1996.. The Brits began Operation Mass Appeal in 1997 to churn out propaganda and sell the war.
> 
> In 1998 the Dual citizenship signatories of the PNAC tried to push Bill Clinton into invading Iraq.. He was too smart for them.. Bush hired a bunch of them to his cabinet.




So, there were people that wanted Saddam gone, and were pushing for that in the real of public discourse. 

Got it. 

Ok, is that the part that upsets you, or do we now move on to the next part?


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Did Gingrich convince you that the Iraq invasion was a failure when he openly began informing the public that it was going to be a failure in December 2003?
> 
> 
> *** FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Well, the war’s a failure in part because the strategy, as I told you on this show in December of ‘03, has been wrong consistently, it’s been a strategy that was far too American.
> ...



Maliki was an Iranian stooge. another ridiculous blunder by Dubya.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> I'm not a liberal and Saddam didn't try to kill Papa Bush.. Dubya was pumping out excuses... like the cat ate my homework.. His father disapproved of invading Iraq.
> 
> Iraq had been chased out of Kuwait.. That was enough.
> 
> It was a very stupid, irresponsible move on Dubya's part, but he sure wanted to be liked by Blair and the Israelis.




His father disagreed. Bill Clinton had a policy of fucking with Iraq though his whole time in office. That was not peace. That was brinksmanship.

From both sides. Saddam was playing the same game from the other side.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> All my questions are real. You are welcome to answer any one of them when you get done pissing and moaning all over this thread.




Wow. I thought for sure you would pick one. Was my request for you to drop the spin shit too much? You just couldn't do it?


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> Correll
> 
> *Prince Bandar tried and tried to dissuade Bush from invading Iraq. When he failed, the SAG recalled him to Arabia.*




The Studio Actors Guild has no real power. Who are you trying to fool?


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> His father disagreed. Bill Clinton had a policy of fucking with Iraq though his whole time in office. That was not peace. That was brinksmanship.
> 
> From both sides. Saddam was playing the same game from the other side.



Arabs, oil men, diplomats, historians, and American expats in the ME all opposed Bush's invasion.

Do you know what the Dual Containment Policy was?

In early December 1998, the biggest news concerned impending congressional proceedings on the impeachment of Clinton. The question was scheduled for House floor debate on Thursday, the 17th. Voting appeared likely the next day.

On Wednesday, the 16th, Clinton again bombed Iraq, falsely claiming it was not cooperating with UN inspectors. Consequently the House postponed the impeachment matter for a day and Iraq took over the headlines. Killing a couple of hundred Iraqis, the bombings continued until impeachment was voted December 19.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Did Gingrich convince you that the Iraq invasion was a failure when he openly began informing the public that it was going to be a failure in December 2003?
> 
> 
> *** FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Well, the war’s a failure in part because the strategy, as I told you on this show in December of ‘03, has been wrong consistently, it’s been a strategy that was far too American.
> ...




How is any of that relevant to anything we have been discussing? Your focus has been completely on "proving" or spam botting your talking points that there was no good reason for supporting the war and that those that did are "bloodthirsty warmongers".

Jumping from that, to suddenly, a point about judging the policy from a perspective of years afterwards, is a complete subject change.


It really, really looks like you are playing the circular debating game, to avoid being nailed down to really defending any of your central points.


Wally.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> Arabs, oil men, diplomats, historians, and American expats in the ME all opposed Bush's invasion.
> 
> Do you know what the Dual Containment Policy was?
> 
> ...




Like I said, Brinksmanship, not peace. So, what is your point?


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> The Studio Actors Guild has no real power. Who are you trying to fool?



SAG is Saudi Arab Government. You don't know who Bandar is either.


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Like I said, Brinksmanship, not peace. So, what is your point?



Clinton was trying to distract Americans from his Monica sex scandal.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> SAG is Saudi Arab Government. You don't know who Bandar is either.




Dude. My point is, that your post was irrelevant and made no point and had nothing to do with the post you responded to.


you seem to be a spam bot, like NOt, but set to "random shit".


Who the fuck cares about Bandar relevant to this issue?


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> Clinton was trying to distract Americans from his Monica sex scandal.




Ok. And that is relevant to what I said how? What does it matter to this thread? Or the Iraq War? 


Do you even understand that you have not actually made a point?


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Ok. And that is relevant to what I said how? What does it matter to this thread? Or the Iraq War?
> 
> 
> Do you even understand that you have not actually made a point?



So why did you bring up Clinton?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> How is any of that relevant to anything we have been discussing?



It is most relevant because you cited Gingrich as a source of inspiration that helped to produce your support for starting a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 

He was an architect of the war and nine months in he sees it going to shit so he openly objects to what W and all his Lieutenants were doing. 

And you trusted that white Christian moron for advice on starting a war in a Muslim country and you want to say his objections after the war and occupation started are not relevant.

I understand when you don’t know how to respond so you need to end it and run away in a new direction.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your focus has been completely



Your fact-shy focus is on format and mind-reading.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.
> 
> 
> My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.



When was it announced that you speak for all Americans?


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> So why did you bring up Clinton?




To make the point that the conflict between America and Saddam was not just something that George W. Bush, caused. It was a continuing conflict.


----------



## surada (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> To make the point that the conflict between America and Saddam was not just something that George W. Bush, caused. It was a continuing conflict.


 LOLOL.. Everyone knew Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. Maybe Bush wanted to win favor with Iran.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is most relevant because you cited Gingrich as a source of inspiration that helped to produce your support for starting a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis.
> 
> He was an architect of the war and nine months in he sees it going to shit so he openly objects to what W and all his Lieutenants were doing.
> 
> ...




I did not "trust" him. I found his reasoning to be compelling. 

That he had complaints later, does not change that. 

You are not making a point here. What do you think this shows?


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your fact-shy focus is on format and mind-reading.




i spent months discussing the invasion with you. That you failed to ask any real questions, or when you did, you chose to not follow them up,

is on you.


I am kind of done with that shit. You have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you are not really  interested in the Iraqi War, so much as just using it to spew hate and division.


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

surada said:


> LOLOL.. Everyone knew Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. Maybe Bush wanted to win favor with Iran.




That's stupid. That makes no sense. Seriously, wtf are you doing?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> And, I have spent months here, defending my support of the invasion, and doing a masterful job at it,



You cannot defend your premise that SH was required to do something that was impossible to do. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Can you produce something that backs the idea that SH was obligated to produce something that was impossible to produce that you posed in your absurd hypothetical question?



You never defend yourself when you are challenged.  Never. That is buy one example. 



Correll said:


> That you failed to ask any real questions, or when you did, you chose to not follow them up.



Didn’t know there was an expiration date on following up on questions. 


The record shows the questions you refuse to answer are conveniently categorized as not real or irrelevant or based on bad motives. 

Its telling that you consider yourself so wise and powerful that you get to decide what questions are real and what questions are not. What points are relevant and what points are not.

And you are a liar because I know it’s a fact that I never asked you the question about Biden and Cheney until today. And it touched off another major piss and moan fit. 

You say you are masterfully at defending your support for the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis but you won’t say that you if supported the Cheney nation building policy where we were to be “greeted as liberators” and fuck the UN  or if you supported the Biden nation building policy to take time to get the UN support needed because nation building was going to be tough and . would take a long time. 


Or is there some other nation building war policy that you have not told us about?


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You cannot defend your premise that SH was required to do something that was impossible to do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You  posted a list of almost questions. I asked you to drop the bullshit partisan spin, which seems to be your primary goal, and pick one of them, to ask as a real question, and I offered to answer it fully, if you did that.


Instead, you choose to double down on the partisan shit spin, because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, THAT is your primary goal.


You want to spew partisan shit, like a spam bot, so that you can spread hate and division.


Want to prove me wrong?

STOP with the shit. STOP with the circular debating technique. Pick one of the almost questions, and ask it seriously without spamming your own post with retarded faggotry, like "bloodthirsty warmonger" or "White Christian Nationalist" and I will GLADLY give real discussion a try.

And then, you will immediately run away. Because you are not prepared to face real debate. 


THe only question is, can you even brink yourself to even try, before you fail.



Now, go. Fail now, or fail in a post or two.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 8, 2021)

Correll said:


> You posted a list of almost questions. I asked you to drop the bullshit partisan spin, which seems to be your primary goal, and pick one of them, to ask as a real question, and I offered to answer it fully, if you did that.



You make no sense. just answer any question honestly without pissing and moaning all over the place.  


Did you support regime change based on Cheney piece of cake fuck the UN policy where the oil paid for the reconstructed or did you support the Biden policy going through the UN because the reconstruction was gonna be a tough long slog and the American people were not going to be committed to a long protected war.? 

Which one?


----------



## Correll (Aug 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You make no sense. just answer any question honestly without pissing and moaning all over the place.
> 
> 
> Did you support regime change based on Cheney piece of cake fuck the UN policy where the oil paid for the reconstructed or did you support the Biden policy going through the UN because the reconstruction was gonna be a tough long slog and the American people were not going to be committed to a long protected war.?
> ...




As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq. 


I considered that Saddam was never going to stop fucking around, and that going in and installing a democratic government could be a strong and healthy push back against Islamic Fundamentalism, in the War of Ideas.


I was concerned about the various types of cost, but I had reason to hope that the costs would not be too great both in human terms and in actual money, and the possible payoff could be huge.


The alternative it seemed, was to continue to just use military responses to Terrorism, in a sort of whack a mole type game, that would never really challenge the real causes, or hinder the real mechanism of Terrorism. 


That was my thinking, prior to the invasion. Any discussion of the actual RESULTS of the war, is a different discussion. My thinking prior to the invasion was made WITHOUT knowledge of the results of the war. 


I look forward to your reply, to see if you can respond, in a serious manner.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

Because you Correll very recently opined this: 



Correll said:


> Joe Biden was in Congress and supported the overall policy of hostility with Iraq, he deserves a nice share.



The pre-war overall policy was not framed as hostility with Iraq. I was awake at the time and I heard W express his desire for a peaceful resolution of the WMD issue. 

Here an excerpt starting in September 2002 When W rejected the Cheney ‘fuck the UN’ policy since nation building will be easy and W embraced the Biden policy of ‘we need the UN full support because nation building will be hard and long: 

*** Reporter: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

Bush:  If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, "We support the administration's ability to keep the peace." That's what this is all about.

Biden and Cheney were miles apart. 

Define what you mean by “ overall policy of hostility with Iraq” and because you say Biden and Cheney were promoting the very same overall policy of hostility with Iraq I will ask you the ‘nation builder war of ideas’ supporter once again: 

Do you agree with Dick Cheney at the time  that it was best and appropriate to go it alone to change the regime in order to disarm Iraq and nation build without full UN support or did you agree with Joe Biden who wanted Bush to wait a few months to get full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence and to have full international support for nation building Iraq into a successful democracy?

Was it BIden policy or Cheney policy as defined that caused you to believe an invasion  of Iraq was absolutely necessary in March 19 2003?  

Why could we not wait a few more months to start nation building as Biden wanted and you’d get a better chance for your nation building to limit casualties and succeed.  Or if you believed we would be greeted as liberators as Cheney said and nation building would be easy

Why did you have to start it right in the middle of peaceful inspections when if you believed Cheney that the regime change would be swift and the Nation building would mostly be up to the Liberated Iraqis.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> Saddam Hussein certainly gets a good share of credit for all the results of his policies of wars and confrontation with the US.



That is not a fact. 

Saddam Hussein did not invade any country in March 2003. His country was invaded in the midst of being peacefully disarmed by the UNSC for three months. 

That is a fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

Preemptive War of aggression: 



NotfooledbyW said:


> So which side had the moral weight on the choice they made? The side that chose to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq or the side that chose to fight those that attacked and invaded and occupied Iraq.






Correll said:


> Supporting war as a policy is an belief in a conflict of interests between two (or more) nations that needs to be resolved though force. It says nothing about the moral value of the lives of the other side.




 ….. that needs to be resolved though force.… 

What exactly were “the needs” on March 19 2003? 

The most powerful nation on earth in a ‘conflict of interest’ bombs invades and occupies a lesser country that had near zero capacity to defend itself from invasion. There is no death and destruction within the borders of the invading nations. The bloodletting, maiming, death and destruction is contained within the borders of the invaded nation. 

And you see no moral dilemma involved with that?


If you believed the United States could easily and cheaply invade, remove the regime, occupy and reconstruct a country in the Muslim world you have embraced sheer folly. 

If you believed we couid do all that in Iraq and It says nothing about the moral value of the lives on the other side you need not just have your head examined you need to have your soul examined for any connection to spirituality and morality.


----------



## Correll (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Because you Correll very recently opined this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1. The policy might not have been "framed" as hostility with Iraq. But it obviously was hostility with Iraq. Hostility which was returned from iraq, and had been for quite some time.

2. Biden and Cheney might have had serious disagreements with how to proceed in their hostility with Iraq, but both supported hostility with Iraq. Cheney wanted an invasion, Biden supported Clinton in his policy of regime change though out his administrations. 


3. We had waited long enough.


----------



## Correll (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is not a fact.
> 
> Saddam Hussein did not invade any country in March 2003. His country was invaded in the midst of being peacefully disarmed by the UNSC for three months.
> 
> That is a fact.




Looking at a certain date and discussing the actions of that date out of context, is insanely dishonest. People don't think like that.


And those that supported the invasion, did not believe that Iraq was being "peacefully disarmed".  


We believed, at the time that Saddam was successfully hiding his WMDs. 


Not, that that was my personal motivation for supporting the war. As I have repeatedly discussed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> Looking at a certain date and discussing the actions of that date out of context, is insanely dishonest. People don't think like that.



That is not a fact or an argument based on such critical things like facts logic and reason.  

The historical facts truth and record is clear - from OCTOBER 2002,  during the march to war that I would love very much to discuss with you, through March 17 2003, the Biden invasion policy was in effect at the time. The Cheney policy was sidelined. 

You for some reason refuse to allow the Biden policy to be part of the discussion as if it never really happened. You have canceled 1441. 

You have attempted to assign blame to Biden as one of the architects of an aggressively hostile stance against SH  and you deny the truth that the Biden policy matters and you forbid the Biden Iraq policy from being entered into the courtroom of this current debate. 

But you are not the presiding officer of this debate. 

THEREFORE you must allow the Biden policy to be admitted into evidence because it was the most historically internationally recognized relevant ramp up policy going on from November 2002 all the way up to the last second when W told the 200 inspectors on March 17 they needed to get out of Iraq immediately or their lives would be at risk. 

It was SH’s final opportunity to comply. 

The Biden policy was center stage with glaring spotlights until March 18’ when the Cheney @Fuck the UN we will be greeted as liberators policy@ was about to restart and we all had to witness - Blitzkrieg Shock and awe.’

So I ask you again 

PRIOR to the invasion did you agree with Dick Cheney at the time that it was best and appropriate to go it alone to change the regime in order to disarm Iraq and nation build without full UN support because we would be greeted as liberators or did you agree with Joe Biden who wanted Bush to wait a few months to get full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence and to have full international support for nation building Iraq into a successful democracy? 

Key words from Biden 

“in order to be certain about the evidence”


Was your mindset Cheney’s Fuck the UN “we will be greeted as Christian liberators” the war won’t cost us much or was it Biden’s “we-need the UN because we will be greeted as Christian conquerers and occupiers” so we must anticipate and prepare the American people for a very long and costly war. 

I subscribed to the Biden policy prior to the invasion and continue to this day. 

Which policy were you subscribed to when you decided to support the decision to invade. If there was another war policy that influenced your decision let’s hear it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> And those that supported the invasion, did not believe that Iraq was being "peacefully disarmed".



Was that a faith based belief or was it based on a rational witnessing of the facts based on objective reality? 

Belief in something contrary to observable reality that over ninety percent or more of the world’s global educated and tuned in citizens believe is not healthy. Specifically when the contrary belief is incubated mostly within the borders of the world’s greatest superpower with enough nuclear weapons in its arsenal to blow the world up something like five times over.,


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Was it BIden policy or Cheney policy as defined that caused you to believe an invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary in March 19 2003?



Why can’t  you go on the record with an answer to the question? 



Correll said:


> 3. We had waited long enough.



But Because you say you supported the nation building long term scheme as a push against Islamic extremism and I assume you hoped the nation building project would start well and end well, it makes no sense to require the architects to take the necessary responsibility and time to do it right. 

You would have required a better plan than being greeted as liberators and fuck the UN. 



Correll said:


> We believed, at the time that Saddam was successfully hiding his WMDs.



It was a belief based on what after 200 UN inspectors after three month found no evidence to support that belief including the leads from the world’s intelligence community that were handed to inspectors to confirm ir deny. They denied every lead that W gave them. 

Not a good track record if your belief was based on in basic trust in US and other intelligence claims.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Saddam Hussein did not invade any country in March 2003. His country was invaded in the midst of being peacefully disarmed by the UNSC for three months.






Correll said:


> Looking at a certain date and discussing the actions of that date out of context, is insanely dishonest.



How was that fact as presented out of context?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at.



That is one of Correll ‘s most foolish ideas. 

So I asked: 


NotfooledbyW said:


> Would you not have preferred, as Biden suggested prior to the decision to invade, for the inspectors to have been on a fool’s errand instead of the US military being sent on one.



As usual Correll cannot answer questions:


Correll said:


> A very, very hypothetical question, as that is not how the policy question was framed at the time, because we did not know what we know now.



Senator Biden did not know what we know now but he knew the nation building was not going to be the piece of cake that Cheney’s propaganda effort was promoting. 



Correll said:


> My thinking prior to the invasion was made WITHOUT knowledge of the results of the war.



That is why Correll should have listened to Biden instead of Cheney.


----------



## Correll (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is not a fact or an argument based on such critical things like facts logic and reason.
> 
> The historical facts truth and record is clear - from OCTOBER 2002,  during the march to war that I would love very much to discuss with you, through March 17 2003, the Biden invasion policy was in effect at the time. The Cheney policy was sidelined.
> 
> ...




See post 3010, where I most recently answered that question for you.  


Nothing has changed since then.


----------



## Correll (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Was that a faith based belief or was it based on a rational witnessing of the facts based on objective reality?
> 
> Belief in something contrary to observable reality that over ninety percent or more of the world’s global educated and tuned in citizens believe is not healthy. Specifically when the contrary belief is incubated mostly within the borders of the world’s greatest superpower with enough nuclear weapons in its arsenal to blow the world up something like five times over.,




 Both.  A lot of facts, but also faith in the inspectors being motivated not by their professional responsibilities but by their desire for Peace.


As I have repeatedly discussed with you.


I'm not sure why you want to rehash this. We are not covering any new ground here.


----------



## Correll (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why can’t  you go on the record with an answer to the question?



I have repeatedly. 




NotfooledbyW said:


> But Because you say you supported the nation building long term scheme as a push against Islamic extremism and I assume you hoped the nation building project would start well and end well, it makes no sense to require the architects to take the necessary responsibility and time to do it right.
> 
> You would have required a better plan than being greeted as liberators and fuck the UN.



YOu are drifting into spin again. The plan was to invade, "be greeted as liberators" and do some limited nation building and have them exist as a strong alternative to Islamic Fundamentalism. 

It is reasonable for you to have disagreed with US, it is not reasonable for you to tell me what we "had" to do, or to deny that we could do, what we obviously did. Either of those, is... not reasonable. 






NotfooledbyW said:


> It was a belief based on what after 200 UN inspectors after three month found no evidence to support that belief including the leads from the world’s intelligence community that were handed to inspectors to confirm ir deny. They denied every lead that W gave them.
> 
> Not a good track record if your belief was based on in basic trust in US and other intelligence claims.



Irrelevant. BUT, if it makes you feel better, I have much less faith in US intelligence services today then I did then.


----------



## Correll (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> How was that fact as presented out of context?




It is a fact, presented out of context. You might as well discuss how Germany wasn't invading anyone in Sept. 1944, but we were bombing the shit out of them.


It would be technically TRUE, but completely misleading, because of the lack of context.


----------



## Correll (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is one of Correll ‘s most foolish ideas.
> 
> So I asked:
> 
> ...




So, you ask me a number of questions about what I thought at the time, and then judge me based on information I did not have at that time.


That is kind of dishonest.


----------



## Correll (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW , do you believe that I honestly and in good faith, wanted a good outcome for the people of Iraq?


----------



## Correll (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW , going into the war, even though you disagreed with it, what was you HOPE, for the outcome?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

Correll said:


> @NotfooledbyW , going into the war, even though you disagreed with it, what was you HOPE, for the outcome?




I was shocked but not awed. That night watching Baghdad being bombed was the most shameful news coverage of an American military operation I had ever seen. It was disgusting because I was 99 percent certain that W lied when he said he had intelligence that left no doubt that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors. 

But there was no turning back once the ground troops went in. 

Since we went in I hoped for our troops sake that the lying rotten SOB warmongering scum Dick Cheney was right that we would be greeted as liberators. 

I Hoped W had a fucking plan to keep order and our troops and the civilians from shooting at each other.  I soon realized that W was not prepared after I had akready read about the warnings that he wasn’t going to be. 

So the next thing I hoped for was that our great military could figure out a way to extricate themselves from the W debacle. 

A key moment in support of the extrication was when GENERAL PETRAEUS testified before Congress that we had to negotiate with Muqtada al Sadr  SHIITE military leader who led the Shiite insurgency against our troops, ,in order to get our asses out of there. I SUPPORTED Petraeus after that. He knew what needed to be done. W was lucky that Petraeus was involved. 








I knew the the kehoped we we would be greeted as liberators even though I could see a scenario where that would come to pass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 9, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you agree with Dick Cheney at the time that it was best and appropriate to go it alone to change the regime in order to disarm Iraq and nation build without full UN support or did you agree with Joe Biden who wanted Bush to wait a few months to get full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence and to have full international support for nation building Iraq into a successful democracy?
> 
> Was it BIden policy or Cheney policy as defined that caused you to believe an invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary in March 19 2003?



There is the question. 


Here is your post 3010:

*** As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq. 

*** I considered that Saddam was never going to stop fucking around, and that going in and installing a democratic government could be a strong and healthy push back against Islamic Fundamentalism, in the War of Ideas.

*** I was concerned about the various types of cost, but I had reason to hope that the costs would not be too great both in human terms and in actual money, and the possible payoff could be huge.

*** The alternative it seemed, was to continue to just use military responses to Terrorism, in a sort of whack a mole type game, that would never really challenge the real causes, or hinder the real mechanism of Terrorism. 

*** That was my thinking, prior to the invasion. Any discussion of the actual RESULTS of the war, is a different discussion. My thinking prior to the invasion was made WITHOUT knowledge of the results of the war. 

*** I look forward to your reply, to see if you can respond, in a serious manner


I don’t see anywhere that you answered the question about what Iraq invasion POLICY you supported.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> You might as well discuss how Germany wasn't invading anyone in Sept. 1944, but we were bombing the shit out of them.



They invaded and occupied Hungary and Slovakia in 1944

You are a moron. Do you think Germany retreated and pulled all those forces back to their own original borders in 1944?

*** Following the Allied invasion of Normandy (June 1944), the German Army was pushed back on all fronts until the final collapse in May 1945.

*** In March 1944, to prevent Hungary from leaving the Axis alliance, German troops occupied Hungary. Even as Soviet troops surged across the East Prussian border into German territory in August 1944, German troops invaded and occupied Slovakia, after the Slovak resistance initiated an uprising.

Damn! you are an idiot. There’s this thing called occupation that was the intent of Germany’s multitude of invasions that caused WWII. 

Iraq was nothing remotely close to 1944 Nazi Germany when W invaded IRAQ IN 2003. Your concept of contexts is screwed up.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I was shocked but not awed. That night watching Baghdad being bombed was the most shameful news coverage of an American military operation I had ever seen. It was disgusting because I was 99 percent certain that W lied when he said he had intelligence that left no doubt that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors.



Does not address the question. Dose contain numerous spin words and slurs. 





NotfooledbyW said:


> But there was no turning back once the ground troops went in.
> 
> Since we went in I hoped for our troops sake that the lying rotten SOB warmongering scum Dick Cheney was right that we would be greeted as liberators.



Sort of touches on the question, but mostly just partisan spin. 





NotfooledbyW said:


> I Hoped W had a fucking plan to keep order and our troops and the civilians from shooting at each other.  I soon realized that W was not prepared after I had akready read about the warnings that he wasn’t going to be.



Starts off as an attack sort of disguised as an answer, and then just devolved into a partisan attack.





NotfooledbyW said:


> So the next thing I hoped for was that our great military could figure out a way to extricate themselves from the W debacle.



More partisan spin and no answer.





NotfooledbyW said:


> A key moment in support of the extrication was when GENERAL PETRAEUS testified before Congress that we had to negotiate with Muqtada al Sadr  SHIITE military leader who led the Shiite insurgency against our troops, ,in order to get our asses out of there. I SUPPORTED Petraeus after that. He knew what needed to be done. W was lucky that Petraeus was involved.



Nothing to do with the question. Just an attack on your partisan enemies. 





NotfooledbyW said:


> I knew the the kehoped we we would be greeted as liberators even though I could see a scenario where that would come to pass.




A "Greeting" is not an outcome. It is a beginning. 


If you are such a negative, pessimistic person that you had no hopes at that time, you can admit that. I'm not going to... make fun of you for it.


I ask again though, at that time, what were you hoping for, as an outcome?


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> They invaded and occupied Hungary and Slovakia in 1944
> 
> You are a moron. Do you think Germany retreated and pulled all those forces back to their own original borders in 1944?
> 
> ...




Do you deny that Nazi Germany was "not invading anyone in sept of 1944"? That's a "fact". 


You supported bombing them, when they were not invading anyone.  We could have sent in US negotiators who would have talked to them. And then come back and told us what they said. And then went and talked to them some more.

And then came back to us and told us their replies. 

And then went and talked to them some more.  And came back and talked some more. 


Maybe we could have had a summit somewhere. And talked about global desertification. And talked some more. and then we could ask them to go home. 


And they could ask some questions about that. And then the summit would be over and the un negotiators could have shit to do again.


No down side. Well, the people were being genocided and oppressed and such, but the PROCESS was going on nicely.



Sure, Saddam's Iraq was no Nazi Germany. I never said it was.


THe point about focusing on one instance and ignoring context though, is still valid, and you can't refute  it, which is why you WANT to distract from the point and talk about other issues, like how relatively smaller Iraq was, threat wise.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> You supported bombing them, when they were not invading anyone.



No you complete and utter imbecile. I supported bombing them even though I wasn’t alive but in retrospect because they were occupying the nations that they had invaded earlier you moron.


And then only was Iraq not inviting anybody in March 2003 they were not occupying any land territory outside of their borders. You’re too stupid to understand that I cannot help you and no one can.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No you complete and utter imbecile. I supported bombing them even though I wasn’t alive but in retrospect because they were occupying the nations that they had invaded earlier you moron.
> 
> ....



So, you do understand the concept of context and how it can make, sentences that are technically true, extremely misleading.


Good. So, stop doing that.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW 


Ask me what I hoped for.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> I ask again though, at that time, what were you hoping for, as an outcome?



I hoped for a lot of things as i laid out.  I at first hoped  that Vice President Dick Cheney was correct that we would be greeted as liberators and the war would be short and the occupation would be easy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you do understand the concept of context and how it can make, sentences that are technically true, extremely misleading






There was nothing misleading at all about a statement that the Iraq was not invading  any other nation in March 2003. You were the one distort reality by comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany in or after 1939. 

Had  I said Iraq never invaded another country that would be misleading you moron.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I hoped for a lot of things as i laid out.  I at first hoped  that Vice President Dick Cheney was correct that we would be greeted as liberators and the war would be short and the occupation would be easy.



And then what?


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There was nothing misleading at all about a statement that the Iraq was not invading  any other nation in March 2003. You were the one distort reality by comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany in or after 1939.
> 
> Had  I said Iraq never invaded another country that would be misleading you moron.




It is misleading. YOu are leaving out ALL the context of decades of war adn brinksmanship.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> It is misleading. YOu are leaving out ALL the context of decades of war adn brinksmanship.



US policy in March 2003 was operating along with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution took into account every single dastardly thing that Saddam Hussein had done since 1990 Including the invasion of Kuwait. 

He was given a final opportunity to comply under the United State war policy at that time. That means the invasion of Kuwait had absolutely nothing to do with making a determination if Iraq was disarmed.

My discussion points do not leave  that out. 

Do we have to include the first rocks thrown between humans at each other at Olduvi gorge every time we establish a point. FFS you are one stupid human being.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> US policy in March 2003 was operating along with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution took into account every single dastardly thing that Saddam Hussein had done since 1990 Including the invasion of Kuwait.
> 
> He was given a final opportunity to comply under the United State war policy at that time. That means the invasion of Kuwait had absolutely nothing to do with making a determination if Iraq was disarmed.
> 
> ...



None of that really follows. 

That US policy was "operating along with 1441" does not support any of what you say.

That resolution did NOT take into account every single think Saddam ever did. 


That the resolution took any of it into account, does not mean that the rest of the context doesn't matter any more. 


NOthing in your post supports the idea that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament. 


Your discussion points are structured like a supporting argument, but are really fairly random, unrelated stuff.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> That US policy was "operating along with 1441" does not support any of what you say.



Why not? 

It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections. 

So if 1441 would allow SH to stay in power despite the fact that he invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990 then if you had a functioning brain you would understand that in March 2003 it did not matter that he had invaded Kuwait. 

Iraq was not operating its military outside of  its borders in 2003 and that jis a fact.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why not?
> 
> It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections.
> 
> ...




A better question is "why?".


When the US "operates with" the UN, it is not working UNDER the UN, and just because there is some paper work with an UN letterhead on it, involved, does not limit US actions or thinking, or what we might consider as we make our next step.


Your.... odd assumption that it does, is.... very odd. LIke not based in reality or any  understanding on how humans work.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> When the US "operates with" the UN, it is not working UNDER the UN,



I didn’t say anything about working ‘under’ you disinformation maniacal jerk. I said working ‘with’ the UN so I mean working ‘with’ …… no need for your format tantrum. 

Biden wanted to work with the UN - Cheney did not.. for months leading up to the invasion W told us his preference was to disarm Iraq peacefully. You called that W going through the motions.  So W was privately for the CHENEY fuck the UN invasion policy while pretending to be for the Biden work with the UN Invasion policy .
Did you believe Cheney had the more reality based proposal for invading or Senator Biden. 

Did Cheney’s optimism for being greeted as liberators with no worries about creating an insurgency and backlash against our troops after invading a Muslim Nation that has serious sectarian divides influence your support invading Iraq and killing innocent Iraqis to hunt for wmds. 

Just so you know I thought that Joe was right - in the event we go in we best be preuared to keep civil order after toppling the regime. 

Why do you avoid telling us your choice.? 

What are you hiding?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> None of that really follows



DONT you mean you are too stupid to follow it or if you admit you follow it your entire house of cards based on lies will fall down. 

Was it third grade that children learn that just because you say something it does  not mean it is true. You need to support what you say more than “just because”  “because I said so.  “


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> NOthing in your post supports the idea that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament.



I think you mean invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament because I am right in what I explained. 


And you prove yourself to be a liar once again because I did not say “  the invasion of  (Kuwait) had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament. You lie. Please stop for your own good and to avoid future dumb wars. 

 I wrote 





NotfooledbyW said:


> It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections



It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections. 

To a specific end “it did not matter” and I explain why it did not matter. 

But you can’t refute my point so you lie that I wrote the invasion of KUWAIT had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament. 

NOTHING TO DO WITH??     you lying Trump voter.. WHERE Did YOU GET That? 

It did not matter     Nothing to do with   they have entirely different meanings / you are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> A better question is "why?".



WHY What?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> and just because there is some paper work with an UN letterhead on it, involved, does not limit US actions or thinking,



I did not say US actions or thinking is limited when working with the UN. You lie.,

W made 1441 US policy until he saw I believe that Iraq was cooperating and then  made up intelligence that he says left no doubt that IRAQ was hiding the most lethal   Weapons ever devised and told the inspectors to leave rather than confirm or debunk W’s make believe Intel.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you do understand the concept of context



I understand the context that you are an idiot.

Which nation invaded another nation In March 2003. Was it the USA or was it Iraq.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I didn’t say anything about working ‘under’ you disinformation maniacal jerk. I said working ‘with’ the UN so I mean working ‘with’ …… no need for your format tantrum.
> 
> Biden wanted to work with the UN - Cheney did not.. for months leading up to the invasion W told us his preference was to disarm Iraq peacefully. You called that W going through the motions.  So W was privately for the CHENEY fuck the UN invasion policy while pretending to be for the Biden work with the UN Invasion policy .
> Did you believe Cheney had the more reality based proposal for invading or Senator Biden.
> ...





If we are working WITH them, then there is not requirement that their resolution requires that we stop thinking about the context or events that may or may not have been considered in the writing of the resolution.


So, all you talk about reasons to ignore context, was just not true.


I think Bush was convinced that Saddam would never truly cooperate in good faith. And even if he was pressured into some level of compliance, would IMMEDIATELY upon having the chance, go back to his policy of aggression and hostility to US and his neighbors. 


And I think that was reality based. And I agree with him. You never discuss what you imagine a Saddam Iraq would look like today. 


Word was, that his sons were even worse than he was. If Saddam had died of old age by now, or even just retired and let them take over, it could very well be worse than it ever was.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> DONT you mean you are too stupid to follow it or if you admit you follow it your entire house of cards based on lies will fall down.
> 
> Was it third grade that children learn that just because you say something it does  not mean it is true. You need to support what you say more than “just because”  “because I said so.  “




I did. YOu cut it. So, that's the end of that.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I think you mean invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament because I am right in what I explained.
> 
> 
> And you prove yourself to be a liar once again because I did not say “  the invasion of  (Kuwait) had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament. You lie. Please stop for your own good and to avoid future dumb wars.
> ...




Sorry I thought  you had just misspoke. 


ok so you were really discounting the fact that Saddam had a history of launching wars of conquest in the past, in regards to crafting policy to contain him.



WOW. 


Err, I disagree. Wars of conquest is a huge red flag, into what type of person and leader a head of state is. Just because it's been a while since they launched one, doesn't mean they are not dangerous warmongers.


----------



## Correll (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I did not say US actions or thinking is limited when working with the UN. You lie.,
> 
> W made 1441 US policy until he saw I believe that Iraq was cooperating and then  made up intelligence that he says left no doubt that IRAQ was hiding the most lethal   Weapons ever devised and told the inspectors to leave rather than confirm or debunk W’s make believe Intel.




Sure you did. I brought up context and you said, that was considered in the crafting of the resolution, so you don't get to.... consider it more, or something like that. 


Your thinking is hard to follow at times.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I did not say US actions or thinking is limited when working with the UN. You lie.,






Correll said:


> Sure you did.



Then post it where you think I said it. I said nothing of the sort.   You are a liar. 


Half a million Iraqis would not be dead if US actions were limited by the UN in March 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> ok so you were really discounting the fact that Saddam had a history of launching wars of conquest in the past, in regards to crafting policy to contain him.




You are a liar. I did not discount anything by stating a fact that Iraq was not the invading nation in March 2003. The USA was the only country invading another country in March 2003. That is a fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> Err, I disagree. Wars of conquest is a huge red flag, into what type of person and leader a head of state is. Just because it's been a while since they launched one, doesn't mean they are not dangerous warmongers.



This  ain’t about that. SH was a rotten no good human being.  There is no disagreement on that fact. 

I’m saying OffIcial US POLICY during five months ramp up to war was working with the UN and according to UNSC 1441 and in that framework it did not matter the type of person that SH was. That included his decision to invade Kuwait in 1990.

That is a fact. 

W drafted this paragraph in 1441 and pressured the UN to pass it: 

**** 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations 


Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,



			https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/20/iraq.foreignpolicy2
		




Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


1. Decides that Iraq has been   remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;


They acknowledged all the violations by Iraq in the text if 1441. 


The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demandsthat Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> Just because it's been a while since they launched one, doesn't mean they are not dangerous warmongers.



You are infested with Kirsten 

I never said SH was not a dangerous warmonger. You are a liar.

SH was a dangerous warmonger in 2002 to be made less dangerous when left in power without WMD. That was W’s US Policy from September 2002 through March 17 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> i f we are working WITH them, then there is not requirement that their resolution requires that we stop thinking about the context or events that may or may not have been considered in the writing of the resolution.



WTF? Of course there is no requirement in 1441 that the US stop thinking….

The US drafted 1441. it was US policy in writing.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 10, 2021)

War?

No.

A one-time-only multi-warhead aerial cleansing by fire of both Iraq and Iran?

HELL YES.

Make a big, deep glass-lined hole.  Seed the clouds to cause rain to fill the awaiting lakebed and solve the Middle East's water problems at the same time. Besides, no honest eco-freak could disagree that reducing the world's population would do wonders for the pipe dreams of "Saving The Planet".  Almost as much as if they themselves were voluntary participants.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, all you talk about reasons to ignore context, was just not true.



I never talked about reasons to ignore context. You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> I think Bush was convinced that Saddam would never truly cooperate in good faith



Just to be certain. You are saying you think W is a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> I think Bush was convinced that Saddam would never truly cooperate in good faith.



If you were intelligent you would only think that W really had before his eyes an intelligence report from which he announced to the world that the doubtless fact was that SH was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from  the inspectors.

*** “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

And it really myst be intelligence that he did not share with the inspectors.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are infested with Kirsten



that was supposed to be infested  with “lying.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> US policy in March 2003 was operating along with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution took into account every single dastardly thing that Saddam Hussein had done since 1990 Including the invasion of Kuwait.





Correll said:


> That the resolution took any of it into account, does not mean that the rest of the context doesn't matter any more.



I did not say or infer or suggest that ‘because the resolution took SH’s bad behaviors into account, it does not mean that the rest of the context doesn't matter any more.’ 



Correll said:


> Sure you did. I brought up context and you said, that was considered in the crafting of the resolution, so you don't get to.... consider it more, or something like that.



You will not find me saying “so you don't get to.... consider it more” or something like that.

You are a liar becoming more and more detached from reality every time you post. 

This is what I said that I believed triggered your hallucinations. It came with an explanation as to why SH’s history did not matter to the end of disarming Iraq in March 2003 under the condition that SH would remain in power you stupid Fhead. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections.



It was a ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY despite all his bad behavior for his entire life. That explicitly saying this is the deal in the context of all your bad and evil ways prior to this situation and thus resolution. 

That ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY‘ became official Iraq invasion and war or peace POLICY for five months preceding the actual start of the invasion 



Correll said:


> So, all you talk about reasons to ignore context, was just not true.



It was the complete opposite of s demand to ignore context. 

Your ignorance and dimwittedness is very frustrating. 

I’m just posting these in order to try to follow what triggers exist that cause you to hallucinate and lose track of reality. 



Correll said:


> The plan was to invade, "be greeted as liberators" and do some limited nation building and have them exist as a strong alternative to Islamic Fundamentalism.





Correll said:


> THe point about focusing on one instance and ignoring context though, is still valid, and you can't refute it,





NotfooledbyW said:


> And then only was Iraq not inviting anybody in March 2003 they were not occupying any land territory outside of their borders.





NotfooledbyW said:


> There was nothing misleading at all about a statement that the Iraq was not invading any other nation in March 2003.





Correll said:


> It is misleading. YOu are leaving out ALL the context of decades of war adn brinksmanshi


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> YOu are leaving out ALL the context of decades of war adn brinksmanship.



You have the worst grasp of context of anybody on this forum. 1441 did not  leave that out. W’s people drafted it FFS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

So Correll please read the following and then report back to the readers specifically what ‘context’ you feel that W left out when his people drafted what is known as UNSC 1441. 

The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demandsthat Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,



			https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/20/iraq.foreignpolicy2
		




Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


1. Decides that Iraq has been   remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I hoped for a lot of things as i laid out. I at first hoped that Vice President Dick Cheney was correct that we would be greeted as liberators and the war would be short and the occupation would be easy.





Correll said:


> And then what?



Reality set in. A self induced quagmire and money pit was born. Cheney was wrong. We were not greeted as liberators and W had no plan and sent insufficient forces to preserve and maintain order and basic civic and government functions in his hasty attack on Iraq in March 2003. 

W caused so much violence death destruction and chaos in Iraq its hard to say what to hope for except hoping the violence there will some day end..

its so disgusting that my government had a role in it. 

Here is Iraq this year: 

A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report also warned that the ongoing impunity would likely prevent Iraqis from voting in the upcoming elections.

“If the authorities are not able to take urgent steps to stop these extrajudicial killings, the palpable climate of fear they have created will severely limit the ability of Iraqis who have been calling for change to participate in upcoming parliamentary elections,” wrote HRW’s senior researcher Belkis Wille.

“The boycott is a peaceful way to say that as long as there are armed militias connected to the [political] parties and who kill the opposition, we cannot say it’s a legitimate process,” said 34-year-old protester Deena al-Tai.
“As long as armed groups have power, we won’t participate.”

Despite the ongoing killings and the exodus of activists to the safer, Kurdish-run north, the protest movement has not waned, said Munqith Dagher, a senior non-resident researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

“The soul of the movement is still there and it is developing and the attack by the system to stop it and demonise it has failed,” Dagher told Al Jazeera.
Following the violence on Tuesday evening, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq said in a tweet: “Only accountability will stop the pattern of deadly attacks targeting civic and political activists. While the perpetrators may think they have silenced voices, they have only amplified them. Accountability is key for Iraq’s stability. The Iraqi people have a right to know”.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA

ACCOUNTABILITY. I had hoped we’d have that here.

And on January 6 it is of concern that instead of Iraq becoming more like America - America is becoming more like IRAQ.


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Then post it where you think I said it. I said nothing of the sort.   You are a liar.
> 
> 
> Half a million Iraqis would not be dead if US actions were limited by the UN in March 2003.




Did you seriously misunderstand me, and think that I was literally saying that somehow the UN physically prevented US actions?

Especially since I clearly stated "thinking or actions" AND, it was in the context of YOU claiming that that was what SHOULD have happened in your opinion, and US obviously actually invading?


Because as I see it, there are two possibilities here.


One, is that you were operating under decreased brain function from something, ie perhaps you were drunk when you posted that?


Two, you know that I made a valid point, and instead of having the balls to admit it, you are just talking shit.


Which is it?  And I want a real fucking answer. No rambling whining or drama queen shit. A FUCKING ANSWER.


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. I did not discount anything by stating a fact that Iraq was not the invading nation in March 2003. The USA was the only country invading another country in March 2003. That is a fact.




Sure you are. You are focusing on our actions without the context of why we were doing it. 


Just like my example of bombing Germany. During a time when they were not invading anyone. 


Do you think that if you try a stupid trick over and over again, that at some point I will let it pass?


Does that normally work for you?


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> This  ain’t about that. SH was a rotten no good human being.  There is no disagreement on that fact.
> 
> I’m saying OffIcial US POLICY during five months ramp up to war was working with the UN and according to UNSC 1441 and in that framework it did not matter the type of person that SH was. That included his decision to invade Kuwait in 1990.
> 
> That is a fact.




Ok, so your point is, that our actions indicate that we were not holding to our official policy of working with the UN?


ok.  


1. So what?

2. What was the rest of that shit about? Was that just more spam bot-ing?


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are infested with Kirsten
> 
> I never said SH was not a dangerous warmonger. You are a liar.
> 
> SH was a dangerous warmonger in 2002 to be made less dangerous when left in power without WMD. That was W’s US Policy from September 2002 through March 17 2003.




And plenty of people, including the President and I, and large portions of the country, believed that it was NOT being successfully done.


We covered that. You are talking in circles. Do you have anything new to say? It seems that you do have something you have not said, but you get distracted by something, and don't actually say it.


Come on. What is your point? What about this is supposed to be so important to you? LOOK INSIDE AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE.


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> WTF? Of course there is no requirement in 1441 that the US stop thinking….
> 
> The US drafted 1441. it was US policy in writing.




So, why did you dispute me even mentioning it?


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I never talked about reasons to ignore context. You are a liar.




If that was not your intent, then you did it wrong. Because that was ALL I got from it.


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Just to be certain. You are saying you think W is a liar.




Diplomacy is not always about being completely honest. NO President or Prime Minister is completely honest. If they were, they would not be allowed in the job, because they would be unable to even come close to doing the job.


How many times do leaders have to work with people that they have nothing but contempt for?


Like when Lincoln was willing to work with the Slave owning south, to avoid a Civil War. He was obviously being diplomatic, because if he said what he really felt, he would be condemning hundreds of thousands of people to certain death.


NOw, those people died anyways. BUT, his attempt at diplomacy was still the right thing for him to TRY. 


Technically, he was LYING, when he said many of those things. But I support that kind of lying.


So do you. 


You just are willing to pretend otherwise, so that you can smear and attack your enemies, ie President Bush and his supporters. 


The Truth, is not your goal. Spreading hate and division is.


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> If you were intelligent you would only think that W really had before his eyes an intelligence report from which he announced to the world that the doubtless fact was that SH was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from  the inspectors.
> 
> *** “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.
> 
> And it really myst be intelligence that he did not share with the inspectors.




You don't sound like you believe that. Nor do I think you really care.

Do you understand that people make mistakes?

Do you understand HOW people make mistakes?


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It was a ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY despite all his bad behavior for his entire life. That explicitly saying this is the deal in the context of all your bad and evil ways prior to this situation and thus resolution.
> 
> That ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY‘ became official Iraq invasion and war or peace POLICY for five months preceding the actual start of the invasion




And we, your enemies, did not believe that he had done that. So, why are we back to this?


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Reality set in




You seem unable to discuss what you hope would happen. 

I think I understand why. You don't want to admit that your enemies had a valid goal. 

You want to focus on the negatives, ie the cost of the war, and harp on various traits of your enemies, like us being white or Christian or Nationalists, so that you can smear those groups as a whole(s).



Ask me what I feared would happen if we did NOT invade. 

(it's funny I have to prompt you to do that. One would think that you would have been curious about that, yourself)


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW 

Not, what did you HOPE would happen, if the invasion did NOT happen?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Not, what did you HOPE would happen, if the invasion did NOT happen?



IF the invasion did not happen on March 19 I hoped Biden/W UN Policy would continue and the Cheney FUCK THE UN policy continued  to be sidelined. 

I hoped that with continued cooperation by Iraq and all nations the truth about the non-existence  of WMD is accepted on or before September 2003 because the peaceful inspections were allowed to continue. 

I hoped the long term monitoring as required in all the UN resolutions was set up and long term WMD monitoring went into effect. 

I hoped Blix and Al Baradai upon completion of the inspections phase would direct the UNSC to lift the sanctions on IRAQ and sanctions were ended. 

That is what I hoped.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> And we, your enemies, did not believe that he had done that.



The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality. 

We the public had plenty of opportunities to see that Iraq let the inspectors back in and the inspections were working. Those who contend the inspections were not working are and were liars and warmongering propagandists. 

That is why Dubya had to say :

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

*** But Mr Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.









						George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack
					

Former US President George W Bush says he still has a "sickening feeling" because no WMDs were found in Iraq, in memoirs due to appear next week.



					www.google.com
				




*** "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

W had to divert the public from seeing the observable “cooperation”to a matter of secret intelligence limited to very few eyes. 

 When Dubya said he had Intelligence that left for him no doubt that the Iraq regime was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the inspectors it meant that the observable cooperation that billions in the world saw was not true. 

But stop with the flat earth bullshit belief that you did not see the inspections working until MARCH 17 when Dubya told you had his top secret information that was not really cooperating.


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> IF the invasion did not happen on March 19 I hoped Biden/W UN Policy would continue and the Cheney FUCK THE UN policy continued  to be sidelined.
> 
> I hoped that with continued cooperation by Iraq and all nations the truth about the non-existence  of WMD is accepted on or before September 2003 because the peaceful inspections were allowed to continue.
> 
> ...




Ok, so the process to continue. Got it. 


What else? Do you imagine Saddam managing a peaceful transfer of power to one of his sons? Or did you hope that the Arab Spring would sweep him from power? Or that he at least would not attack any of his neighbors again?


----------



## Correll (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.
> 
> We the public had plenty of opportunities to see that Iraq let the inspectors back in and the inspections were working. Those who contend the inspections were not working are and were liars and warmongering propagandists.
> 
> ...




Yeah, like I said, we disagreed with you.


I read your above post. It seemed to be nothing but spin.


What do you imagine the point of the above post was? Try saying it in two sentences, without any spin to bury the point.

If there is a point at all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yeah, like I said, we disagreed with you.



You are not disagreeing with me,  you are in dishonest denial of the fact that inspections were working with cooperation from the regime from December 2002 through March 17 2003. 

What you say means nothing because it is not backed by an explanation as to why you ‘believe’ SH was not cooperating - all you got us that you believe it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> You don't want to admit that your enemies had a valid goal.



I know from what you have written here that it is a fact that you Correll YOU did not have a valid, legitimate, reasonable or moral self defense goal and you did not have a goal to end genocide or potential genocide in Iraq. 

You supported the potential to kill innocent human beings as you say in order to conduct an experiment that might erase your mostly unfounded and hyped up fear of Islamic linked terrorism.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yeah, like I said, we disagreed with you.



That is a weak defense of why you still support the killing of half a million Iraqis to conduct an experiment in a Muslim country.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.
> 
> We the public had plenty of opportunities to see that Iraq let the inspectors back in and the inspections were working. Those who contend the inspections were not working are and were liars and warmongering propagandists.





Correll said:


> Try saying it in two sentences, without any spin to bury the point.



The two sentences were there. 

The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what you  ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality. 

We the public had plenty of opportunities to see that Iraq did in fact let the inspectors back in and the inspections were working toward their intended purpose of establishing that Iraq was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 11, 2021)

Correll said:


> What else?



I would have hoped that we investigate why the White House warmonger hype and Intel was so wrong. Find out if the intel was was wrong by the agencies or if the policy makers abused it.,


----------



## the other mike (Aug 11, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


Not to simplify it too much, but Washington DC Democrats and Republicans have pulled the wool over our eyes for decades with their good cop bad cop games.....( you guys screw up the Healthcare System and we'll take the heat for all these wars....  and in 10 years we'll switch roles and those idiots will never know the difference ) what a closed-door meeting between them would sound like.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> When the US "operates with" the UN, it is not working UNDER the UN, and just because there is some paper work with an UN letterhead on it, involved, does not limit US actions or thinking, or what we might consider as we make our next step.



I never said the UN paperwork limits US actions or thinking. You are a liar..



NotfooledbyW said:


> I did not say US actions or thinking is limited when working with the UN. You lie.,





Correll said:


> Sure you did. I






NotfooledbyW said:


> Then post it where you think I said it. I said nothing of the sort. You are a liar.




You have not posted where you think I said it. You are certainly a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 12, 2021)

Correll do you understand what the phrase  ….  “ a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”       ……  used in the paragraphs below means? 

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been  remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of them resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;


If you do understand the concept why are you suffering a hissyfit about not mentioning the historical fact that SH invaded Kuwait in 1990.,

it did not matter to W since he agreed to giving SH a final opportunity to comply and that means  W did not consider the Kuwait invasion to be a reason to remove SH from power.

I want to get more fact denial from you so let it rip..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 12, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.





Correll said:


> Yeah, like I said, we disagreed with you.




Why do you Correll , a warmonger, disagree with the easily observable at the time reality that SH was outwardly cooperating with UN Inspections during the months prior to the start of the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe attack on Iraq in March 2003? 

Why should any war be started by our side based on the false beliefs of warmongers?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Just like my example of bombing Germany. During a time when they were not invading anyone.



Your example is not technically correct. Every single armed NAZI fighting on the ground outside of Germany’s borders in September 1944 was a continuation of the invasion of the country they were in. 

Germany was invading every single country they were in when we bombed them and pushed them all back to Germany.

Iraq had no armed soldiers engaged in armed conflict outside of Iraq’s borders in 2003. 

That’s another diversion from the facts by cheapening language and very stupid of you to do it. You should be ashamed of yourself for desparately deploying such absurd and farcical antics


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Wars of conquest is a huge red flag, into what type of person and leader a head of state is



How many children in Texas need to die before you agree to send in the US military to save them from the governor who opposes protecting them from a virus that has morphed into one that now kills children? 


*** As the highly contagious Delta variant continues to spread, many hospitals are reporting record numbers of children being hospitalized, especially in areas with low vaccination rates, including Arkansas, Florida, Missouri and Texas. 









						Houston doctor: Greg Abbott is a 'direct threat' to the children of Texas
					

As the highly contagious Delta variant continues to spread, many hospitals are reporting record numbers of children being hospitalized, especially in areas with low vaccination rates, including Arkansas, Florida, Missouri and Texas. Dr. Christina Propst, a pediatrician in Houston, says children...




					www.rawstory.com
				




*** Dr. Christina Propst, a pediatrician in Houston, says children under 12 who are still ineligible for COVID-19 vaccines are at risk. "They are currently our most vulnerable population, just as this highly transmissible variant is surging across the country," Propst says. She says Texas Governor Greg Abbott's order banning mask mandates in schools is a purely political decision that ignores science. "What he is doing is a direct threat to the health and well-being of the children of Texas," says Propst.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> I found his reasoning to be compelling.



compelling enough to start a war that killed half a million Iraqis but no longer compelling to you after the start when Gingrich, an architect for the war, objected to the means and methods of the war and occupation that the Decider chose.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives.





Correll said:


> The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives.




As you watched Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe unfold on tv were you in harms way of all those explosions from the start. You said you hoped casualties to innocent civilians would be low. But you knew innocent lives would be taken in the preemptive war you say you support. 

Their lives, those to be killed as collateral damage, had no value to you. They were not involved in any action to harm you and they took no action that could kill you but you were taking action to kill them safely from your couch thousands of miles from the explosions all safe and sound. 

How can you be so asinine to claim to support the massive bombing of Baghdad but in the next breath that the lives of anyone killed in the US assault are equal in value to yours?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Cheney wanted an invasion, Biden supported Clinton in his policy of regime change though out his administrations.



SUPPORTING Iraqis to enact a regime regime change internally is not supporting a ground invasion by US  and occupation to conduct an experiment. 

You will always be an idiot on Iraq because you reject the facts and reality about Iraq in post after post.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 12, 2021)

Correll said:


> Struth is technically right, WMDs, were found. His OPINION on the matter, is valid and is justified.



Struth is a liar. 

Yes, it is true that the ancient shells were found and they may be called WMD. That is not  Struth’s lie. His lie is when he says the WMD that W started a war to look for were found. When he says that, he is a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 13, 2021)

struth said:


> i never said they were the “WMD that was used to justify the war” - you are a liar





struth said:


> show me



You are hereby shown that you are a liar..



NotfooledbyW said:


> SH was not hiding WMD from UN inspectors after 1441. @struth claims SH was hiding WND because the invading army found them.





struth said:


> Xiden's liberating military found them U.S. Intelligence Documents on Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq





struth said:


> I didn't post a NY TImes link. I posted a document from the Govt. which highlights stockpiles of WMDs were found that Saddam was hiding





NotfooledbyW said:


> The weapons were not one ones that the Bush Administration erroneously claimed Saddam Hussein was producing in violation of U.N. sanctions. Some of them were designed in America and sold to Iraq for use in the Iran-Iraq War, a conflict that left hundreds of thousands dead between 1980 and 1988.





struth said:


> the justification. for war is outlined in Xiden authorization. law...there are a number of reasons.
> 
> and yes WMDs were found as a i stated...and what was reported





struth said:


> he certainly expected to find more





struth said:


> the UN said he was in violation...heck we found WMDs he was hiding





struth said:


> all i know is we found some that saddam was hiding





struth said:


> they found WMDs. I don’t think Bush have them specific WMDs too look for.
> 
> It’s just further proof that your old boss Saddam was in violation of the UN





NotfooledbyW said:


> And what was the significance of the junkyard WMDs they found?





struth said:


> that saddam had wasn’t complying with the UN




see all the above Correll. Your fellow warmongering fool is lying when he claims SH was hiding WMD in violation of 1441. 

But the point is had the invasion not been launched and the inspection and long term monitoring process continued to your dismay that peace was being sustained, it is a fact that some of our troops would not have been exposed to those ancient shells. 



Correll said:


> Ok, so the process to continue.



What is wrong with not getting half a million Iraqis killed in order to determine that Iraq did not in fact possess and conceal the most lethal weapons ever devised?

What is wrong with letting the world’s experts safely destroy the ancient shells. 

I have a niece who married a healthy at the time young man who had cancer served as a medic in Iraq and had exposure to the burn pits. Within five years he died a horrible death from several cancers that came out of nowhere. He left my niece and a young daughter behind. 

Can’t prove it but we believe there is a connection as there are others who have gotten sick and died after serving in W’s mistake.,

Three measly months of inspections may have changed history fir the better and my nephew in law would live to see his daughter graduate from high school and college and all that.. 

What would have been so bad had W allowed the process to continue if you value human life the way you claim you do?


----------



## surada (Aug 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> Ok, so the process to continue. Got it.
> 
> 
> What else? Do you imagine Saddam managing a peaceful transfer of power to one of his sons? Or did you hope that the Arab Spring would sweep him from power? Or that he at least would not attack any of his neighbors again?



Arab Spring???? You mean sweep Saddam away 10 years later?

Saddam didn't attack any of his neighbors. They weren't stealing Iraqi oil and had forgiven his OPEC quota debt.

Kuwait was stealing from Iraq and would NOT forgive the OPEC debt.

BTW, why didn't you get it when Bush claimed that Saddam was trucking his WMDs  back and forth from Sudan to Syria?


----------



## struth (Aug 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are hereby shown that you are a liar..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


um none of your links prove i’m a liar.  The justification used, as i have highlighted was in xiden’s Authorization for Use of Miltary Force


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are focusing on our actions without the context of why we were doing it.



The  “why” that you say you were supporting W’s actions was not tied to the context of a threat from Iraq. Your context as you say was tied to enacting an experiment in using massive military force to impose liberty on people who were not interested in having liberty imposed on them by an invading army from a predominantly Christian military superpower. 

W did not do it right because he lacked troop strength in numbers, and was not generally prepared to not be greeted as liberators, and went in with the misconception that Iraq’s oil would pay for reconstruction.





Correll said:


> Diplomacy is not always about being completely honest.



Coming from a documented liar that’s  too funny to let slide.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 13, 2021)

struth said:


> um none of your links prove i’m a liar.



Your lie has nothing to do with Biden.  

W does not consider what was found to be what he considered being “hidden” when he decided he needed to start a war..

Your lie is not that something was found that was very much WMD-like ….. Your lie is that you are saying that what was found is what W said was being hidden. According to W no WMD was ever found that proves SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors in March 2003.

So you are a liar when you say our troops found “hidden” WMD instead of saying our troops found some ancient WMD that was not related to anything to do with W’s decision to start a war.

Did you post a claim that the invading army found WMD that was being hidden and therefore finding hidden WMD proved that Iraq was violating. 

I asked you directly….   


NotfooledbyW said:


> And what was the significance of the junkyard WMDs they found?


And your immediate response was a lie…..



struth said:


> that saddam had wasn’t complying with the UN


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 13, 2021)

struth said:


> i never said they were the “WMD that was used to justify the war”




You said exactly that in direct response to my question: 



NotfooledbyW said:


> You said the US military found them.





struth said:


> sure that was certainly a justification.



You say the ancient shells that the US Military ‘found’ was certainly a justification. 

I hope Correll can see that you are not being technically correct which means you are a liar. And then you lied that you never said it.


----------



## struth (Aug 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your lie has nothing to do with Biden.
> 
> W does not consider what was found to be what he considered being “hidden” when he decided he needed to start a war..
> 
> ...


huh?  what was the lie?  the reasons we went to iraq were outlined in Xiden use of force

yes saddam wasn’t comply…the hidden WMDs alone prove that


----------



## struth (Aug 13, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You said exactly that in direct response to my question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah…they weren’t the specific ones…there were a number of reasons as Xiden outlined in the use of force he passed


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 13, 2021)

struth said:


> yeah…they weren’t the specific ones…



Yes you were spreading one of the BIG lies that came out after the invasion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 13, 2021)

struth said:


> there were a number of reasons as Xiden outlined in the use of force he passed



Thats another lie specifically with regard to Biden. Unlike Correll I will explain exactly why and back it up with the facts. 

ANY Reasons other than WMD in SH’s slimy hands were not due cause for Biden to agree to start the war when W did by cutting off inspections. 

#1 Biden wanted UNSC support - including a second Resolution. He knew the UNSC would only back a war based on solid proof that SH was hiding WMD or quit cooperating. 

#2 Biden wanted to give the Inspectors the extra three months in order to be certain about the evidence that W was presenting. 

If Biden wanted to invade Iraq because he agreed with Correll  that it was right to conduct an experiment in nation building a Muslim country he would not have cared that W got the evidence on WMD to be as solid as gold by holding off the attack a few months.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2021)

struth said:


> if he wasn’t hiding them...why were they hidden??



When it’s thrown on a junkpile waiting to be destroyed it’s no way being hidden. 

These were not hidden. You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are trying to over simply a complex issue.



Nothing complicated about it. The facts were established at the time. Facts don’t change with you political fancies.



NotfooledbyW said:


> U.N. destroying mustard gas shells Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Posted: 10:02 AM EST (1502 GMT)*The U.N. inspectors stressed at the time that the ammunition was expected to be there and not a sign of an active chemical weapons program.*



The ancient shells were not part of an active chemical weapons program. struth is not correct claiming they became proof after the invasion that SH viokated 1441. And you defend struth ‘s lie and warmongering propaganda.


----------



## struth (Aug 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Nothing complicated about it. The facts were established at the time. Facts don’t change with you political fancies.
> 
> 
> 
> The ancient shells were not part of an active chemical weapons program. struth is not correct claiming they became proof after the invasion that SH viokated 1441. And you defend struth ‘s lie and warmongering propaganda.


of course it’s proof he was suppose to turn all that over.  he didn’t


----------



## surada (Aug 14, 2021)

struth said:


> yeah…they weren’t the specific ones…there were a number of reasons as Xiden outlined in the use of force he passed



Specifically he said OK if they waited to see if there were WMDs and there was no other path.

Didn't you KNOW when those clowns claimed Saddam was trucking his WMDs back and forth between Sudan and Syria that they were lying out their asses?


----------



## struth (Aug 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Specifically he said OK if they waited to see if there were WMDs and there was no other path.
> 
> Didn't you KNOW when those clowns claimed Saddam was trucking his WMDs back and forth between Sudan and Syria that they were lying out their asses?


no he specifically said, the president is authorized to use force as he deems necessary.  Read the law he voted for


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Was the ceasefire agreement made with you?





Correll said:


> Yes. Obviously by context.



So you are either the ghost of Saddam Hussein or the United Nations Security Council. Which one?





struth said:


> of course it’s proof he was suppose to turn all that over. he didn’t


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2021)

struth said:


> of course it’s proof he was suppose to turn all that over. he didn’t



You have no standing to claim that it was proof. 


Have you read what I posted before?

***U.N. destroying mustard gas shells Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Posted: 10:02 AM EST (1502 GMT)The U.N. inspectors stressed at the time that the ammunition was expected to be there and not a sign of an active chemical weapons program.

Why do you keep lying about that? Is that some sort of some sort of Trump cult entitlement?

Do you know what “expected to be there” means?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2021)

struth said:


> no he specifically said, the president is authorized to use force as he deems necessary.



You are a liar. 

Its not “deems necessary”

The AUMF says the president is authorized to use force as he determines to be necessary and appropriate. 

determines to be necessary is a future decision on timing and how 

Biden said in Senate hearings before the invasion that there was no risk to wait to invade  in the fall to avoid hot weather, and to shore up the coalition and to be certain that the WMD evidence with solid. 

Therefore as my arguments come with explanations and facts, Biden did not agree as you say that W  could just willy-nilly do whatever the hell he wanted with regard to invading Iraq. Biden warned W of the pitfalls of invading without UN support. Therefore Biden was correct to hold the position that W’s date and thin coalition was not necessary or appropriate. 


(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 --

Biden said don’t do it without the United Nations Security Council second resolution and don’t do it in March. Let the inspectors finish the job.

It’s clear you are a liar and you’re addicted to lying and you can’t quit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2021)

Correll said:


> Thus, we see that you





Correll said:


> supported all the bloody oppression that Saddam would have done, if he remained in power.



The warmongering white cultural Christian Trump supporter who continues to support the needless ACTUAL killing of half a million innocent Iraqis now tries to justify the real disaster by fantasizing what would have happened if he did not support killing half a million Iraqis. 

I guess the guy thinks he deserves a medal or something.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are not disagreeing with me,  you are in dishonest denial of the fact that inspections were working with cooperation from the regime from December 2002 through March 17 2003.
> 
> What you say means nothing because it is not backed by an explanation as to why you ‘believe’ SH was not cooperating - all you got us that you believe it.




It does not matter whether or not it was true. At the time I did not believe it.


That you are unable to understand this simple concept indicates either a serious social disorder like Aspergers, or that you are a blinded by political zealotry to an insane degree.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I know from what you have written here that it is a fact that you Correll YOU did not have a valid, legitimate, reasonable or moral self defense goal and you did not have a goal to end genocide or potential genocide in Iraq.
> 
> You supported the potential to kill innocent human beings as you say in order to conduct an experiment that might erase your mostly unfounded and hyped up fear of Islamic linked terrorism.




You disagree with my goal. That does not mean that it is not valid, legitimate, reasonable or moral.


And stop whining about the "innocent human beings". You have accepted collateral damage as a principle, so your whining about is disgusting.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is a weak defense of why you still support the killing of half a million Iraqis to conduct an experiment in a Muslim country.




YOu seem confused. This thread is about if we supported the invasion. I often find that liberals have trouble with concepts such as linear time or... well, anything real or logical.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The two sentences were there.
> 
> The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what you  ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.
> 
> We the public had plenty of opportunities to see that Iraq did in fact let the inspectors back in and the inspections were working toward their intended purpose of establishing that Iraq was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction.




ALL policy is ALWAYS based on what people believe, and that quite often clashes with what some people would consider "very easily observable reality".

World War One was sold to the American people as a war to "Make the World Safe for Democracy", yet we entered in on the side of Three massive empires, the British, the French and the Russian Empires. 

For one limited example.

If this is your complaint, than your problem is not about the Iraqi Invasion, but about the Human Condition. 


Hint: People with Aspergers are just as likely to miss shit, as normal people. THey just miss different shit. 


This discussion would move faster if you operated in good faith or at least were honest about why you want to spread hate and division.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I would have hoped that we investigate why the White House warmonger hype and Intel was so wrong. Find out if the intel was was wrong by the agencies or if the policy makers abused it.,




Y


NotfooledbyW said:


> Why do you Correll , a warmonger, disagree with the easily observable at the time reality that SH was outwardly cooperating with UN Inspections during the months prior to the start of the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe attack on Iraq in March 2003?
> 
> Why should any war be started by our side based on the false beliefs of warmongers?




Because of the lack of results. Saddam presumably knew where his wmds, were and all he had to do was turn them over. 


What I would have expected if he was truly cooperating was a big pile of wmds, to be destroyed. As I never saw that, I concluded that he was not cooperating.


I have told you this before. Your inability to understand a simple position, is something wrong with your brain.


Seriously, do you have a diagnosis of Aspergers?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I would have hoped that we investigate why the White House warmonger hype and Intel was so wrong. Find out if the intel was was wrong by the agencies or if the policy makers abused it.,




Y


NotfooledbyW said:


> Your example is not technically correct. Every single armed NAZI fighting on the ground outside of Germany’s borders in September 1944 was a continuation of the invasion of the country they were in.
> 
> Germany was invading every single country they were in when we bombed them and pushed them all back to Germany.
> 
> ...




Nope. THey were not "invading" they were occupying. Big difference.


You set the rule. I followed it and gave you an example that disproved your point.


Now all of a sudden, you change the way you operate. NOW, you are about the SPIRIT of the rules or the words, not the literal, or technical meanings.

You  change your standards based on what helps you reach your partisan goals so scoring partisan points. YOu are not consistent. 


This proves that you don't actually give a FUCK about the rule that you pretend the break of offends you so much. 


EVERYTIME, you have whined about how we invaded a "peaceful country that wasn't invading anyone at that time", was you LYING.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> compelling enough to start a war that killed half a million Iraqis but no longer compelling to you after the start when Gingrich, an architect for the war, objected to the means and methods of the war and occupation that the Decider chose.




That is retarded. It makes no point. It is word salad. The fact that I found one argument Gingrich made to be compelling does not require me to always defer to his reasoning at all other times after that.


Seriously, what the fuck kind of stupid ass game are you playing now?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> As you watched Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe unfold on tv were you in harms way of all those explosions from the start. You said you hoped casualties to innocent civilians would be low. But you knew innocent lives would be taken in the preemptive war you say you support.
> 
> Their lives, those to be killed as collateral damage, had no value to you. They were not involved in any action to harm you and they took no action that could kill you but you were taking action to kill them safely from your couch thousands of miles from the explosions all safe and sound.
> 
> How can you be so asinine to claim to support the massive bombing of Baghdad but in the next breath that the lives of anyone killed in the US assault are equal in value to yours?




Incorrect. Supporting war as a policy does NOT mean that the lives to be lost "have no value to you".


That is a retarded thing to say. That implies that EVERYONE that ever supports a war, is a complete sociopath.


I find it hard to believe that you believe that. I think you just said that, as a zinger, to try to throw some mud at your debating opponent. 


Stop your lying. It is not credible that you believe something so stupid.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> SUPPORTING Iraqis to enact a regime regime change internally is not supporting a ground invasion by US  and occupation to conduct an experiment.
> 
> .....



Both were policies of hostility, not Peace.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Struth is a liar.
> 
> Yes, it is true that the ancient shells were found and they may be called WMD. That is not  Struth’s lie. His lie is when he says the WMD that W started a war to look for were found. When he says that, he is a liar.




Show me were Bush, in his formal policy, defined WHICH specific wmds, were being searched for. 

Or admit that you are, by your standards, a "liar".


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

surada said:


> Arab Spring???? You mean sweep Saddam away 10 years later?
> 
> Saddam didn't attack any of his neighbors. They weren't stealing Iraqi oil and had forgiven his OPEC quota debt.
> 
> ...




Saddam didn't attack his neighbors? Are you literally insane?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The  “why” that you say you were supporting W’s actions was not tied to the context of a threat from Iraq. Your context as you say was tied to enacting an experiment in using massive military force to impose liberty on people who were not interested in having liberty imposed on them by an invading army from a predominantly Christian military superpower.
> 
> W did not do it right because he lacked troop strength in numbers, and was not generally prepared to not be greeted as liberators, and went in with the misconception that Iraq’s oil would pay for reconstruction.
> 
> ...




So, don't let it slide. Continue. Expand. Do you deny that diplomacy is as I said it was, or are you just here to make snide suggestive noises and sleaze away like a troll?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You said exactly that in direct response to my question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Dude. You are just playing word games now. You lose. You are a loser. YOu look absurd.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Thats another lie specifically with regard to Biden. Unlike Correll I will explain exactly why and back it up with the facts.
> 
> ANY Reasons other than WMD in SH’s slimy hands were not due cause for Biden to agree to start the war when W did by cutting off inspections.
> 
> ...




So Biden supported the war for different reasons than me. Seriously, wtf do you think that proves?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The warmongering white cultural Christian Trump supporter who continues to support the needless ACTUAL killing of half a million innocent Iraqis now tries to justify the real disaster by fantasizing what would have happened if he did not support killing half a million Iraqis.
> 
> I guess the guy thinks he deserves a medal or something.




Your inability to discuss this seriously or honestly is noted. 


It is too bad that there is no real good faith discussion on this issue. There are lessons to be learned and need to be learned, because this issue will come up again.


And next time, we will have learned nothing, and will be starting at the same place we did before. If not worse.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

"very easily observable reality" 


Correll said:


> ALL policy is ALWAYS based on what people believe, and that quite often clashes with what some people would consider "very easily observable reality".



You took a detour around the point regarding “ a false belief in opposition to 
 easily observable reality.” 

NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080

Your WWI example is pathetic. A prior to the war prediction or suggestion that a war must be fought to make the world safe for democracy is not in any way the “very easily observable reality” that seeing SH cooperating with the 1441 inspections was in fact very very very observable. 

So tell me how you support your suggestion for the sake of argument that a prediction prior to entering a war or suggestion that a war must be fought to make the world safe for democracy was an easily observable fact to anyone deciding to support or oppose a go to war policy in 1912 America. 

Tell us why you are such a time wasting fool to have come up with that horrid abd stupid example?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> "very easily observable reality"
> 
> 
> You took a detour around the point regarding “ a false belief in opposition to
> ...





Question: After the war, ,how many of the German Imperial possessions were taken was spoils of war by the victors, and how does that jive with "democracy"?


Hint: the answers are "'all" and "not".


----------



## surada (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Saddam didn't attack his neighbors? Are you literally insane?



Kuwait was stealing from Iraq and wouldn't forgive his OPEC quota debt. Papa Bush shooed him out of the country. Nothing further was necessary.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Question: After the war, ,how many of the German Imperial possessions were taken was spoils of war by the victors, and how does that jive with "democracy"?
> 
> Hint: the answers are "'all" and "not".




This is the question/request that was put to you regarding the “very easily observable (pre-war) reality" that SH was cooperating with the inspectors:

NFBW wrote: "very easily observable reality"   So tell me how you support your suggestion for the sake of argument that a prediction prior to entering a war or suggestion that a war must be fought to make the world safe for democracy was an easily observable fact to anyone deciding to support or oppose a ‘go to war’ policy in 1912 America.  POST # 3312

Are you ever going to actually reply?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

surada said:


> Kuwait was stealing from Iraq and wouldn't forgive his OPEC quota debt. Papa Bush shooed him out of the country. Nothing further was necessary.




"out of the country"? What "country"? How did he get into that "country? 

I repeat, are you literally insane?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> This is the question/request that was put to you regarding the “very easily observable (pre-war) reality" that SH was cooperating with the inspectors:
> 
> NFBW wrote: "very easily observable reality"   So tell me how you support your suggestion for the sake of argument that a prediction prior to entering a war or suggestion that a war must be fought to make the world safe for democracy was an easily observable fact to anyone deciding to support or oppose a ‘go to war’ policy in 1912 America.  POST # 3312
> 
> Are you ever going to actually reply?




Because the side we entered on, was composed of massive globe dominating empires.


D'uh.


----------



## BS Filter (Aug 17, 2021)

I support killing muslims.  The world is a better place without Islam.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because the side we entered on, was composed of massive globe dominating empires.




But was the case for going into World War One a contrary observation to that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll is having trouble with he concept of common warmonger belief in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.

KEY WORDS - opposition to observable reality



Correll said:


> Because the side we entered on, was composed of massive globe dominating empires.



You still have not answered any of the questions: 

NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080

NFBW wrote; This is the question/request that was put to you regarding the “very easily observable (pre-war) reality" that SH was cooperating with the inspectors:

NFBW wrote: "very easily observable reality" So tell me how you support your suggestion for the sake of argument that a prediction prior to entering a war or suggestion that a war must be fought to make the world safe for democracy was an easily observable fact to anyone deciding to support or oppose a ‘go to war’ policy in 1912 America. POST # 3312

NFBW wrote: Are you ever going to actually reply? POST   # 3135

So Correll are you trying to make the case that the warmonger’s common erroneous belief that SH was not cooperating at all with the UN inspectors at the beginning leading up to the March of 2003 invasion was not in opposition to easily observable reality to all Americans from Colin Powell down to the purposelessly ignorant invasion supporters such as yourself? 

Why don’t you try to make it then?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> But was the case for going into World War One a contrary observation to that?


Yes. As explained. You stonewalling lunatic.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll is having trouble with he concept of common warmonger belief in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.
> 
> KEY WORDS - opposition to observable reality
> 
> ...






It was not easily observable. You made assumptions and present them and your opinions as "Fact" and build your arguments on that. 


Your assumption that the inspectors were operating in good faith, is not supported by ANYTHING.

Your conclusion that there were no wmds, is based on HINDSIGHT. 

You do shit like that, and then act like NOT doing it, is being the weird one.


You are insane.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your assumption that the inspectors were operating in good faith, is not supported by ANYTHING.



The observable fact being discussed is not based upon the attitude of the inspectors. This discussion at this point is about SH’s behavior. SH was cooperating for several months. That was an indisputable observable fact. As early as December 2002 SH made a public offer to let the CIA and US military come into IRAQ to assist the inspectors to find WMD. It was reported on Fox News  and every other news media outlet in the world. It was an offer to cooperate and you cannot deny it.  There are no assumptions involved.

Read this again:

NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080

Are you still saying that the decision to invade a peaceful nation at the time should be based on a belief that is in opposition to observable reality? 

Why are you arguing against my post #3080? 

You really cannot deny observable reality unless you are mentally unfit to observe it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes. As explained




Where? in what Post number?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The observable fact being discussed is not based upon the attitude of the inspectors. This discussion at this point is about SH’s behavior. SH was cooperating for several months. That was an indisputable observable fact. As early as December 2002 SH made a public offer to let the CIA and US military come into IRAQ to assist the inspectors to find WMD. It was reported on Fox News  and every other news media outlet in the world. It was an offer to cooperate and you cannot deny it.  There are no assumptions involved.
> ......



At that time, the only proof I would have found convincing of his cooperation would have been him turning over his stockpile of wmds. 


A "public offer" of cooperation, is nothing but words.  They do not prove that the cooperation is actually happening.

Your attempt to present it as though it does, is you being either insane, or insanely dishonest.


That you attack me, because I did not trust Saddam FUCKING Hussein, is you being as asshole.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Where? in what Post number?


Don't recall. But I did already explain it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> It was not easily observable.



Why was it easily enough observable for you to declare that SH did not it walk softly and poked the bear after 1441 was passed. 



Correll said:


> Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.



You must have watched something leading you to such a conclusion or you just made it up.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> But I did already explain it.



That was not the requirement of 1441. He was required to cooperate. That’s it. 

And that is not what I asked you. 

Here read it again: 

NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080

I did not ask for your warmongering limited definition  of what cooperation meant in 1441.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> A "public offer" of cooperation, is nothing but words. They do not prove that the cooperation is actually happening.



“Intent” at the time was crucial. 

It is proof that it was the intent of Iraq to cooperate whatever it takes and that put the ball in the US court to take up the offer and test the genuineness of the offer. 

Its more than words and it is a very observable fact that simultaneous with the offer the cooperation with the inspectors was started and never regressed.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why was it easily enough observable for you to declare that SH did not it walk softly and poked the bear after 1441 was passed.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have watched something leading you to such a conclusion or you just made it up.




Why did you just change the subject? We were talking about your CLAIM, that you pretend is "fact", even "easily observable fact" that Saddam was co-operating with un inspectors,


and suddenly, you completely changed the subject?


How very odd. It is almost as though when pressed, you realized that your position was absurd.



My point stands. 


I believed that if Saddam were to be truly co-operating in good faith, that the proof would be seen in a large stash of WMDs, being turned over to UN inspectors.


Barring that, I was not open to claims that he was "co-operating:.


Now, it would be reasonable for you to make an argument that my position was in error.


What is NOT reasonable is for you to DENY that my position of the time was....


seriously, what are you even trying to do here? 


It seems that you are trying to get me to admit that my motive was simply to see Muslims killed for the EVUL LUFZ, or some such nonsense.


Instead of my stated and quite reasonable motives and goals.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That was not the requirement of 1441. He was required to cooperate. That’s it.
> 
> And that is not what I asked you.
> 
> ...




WTF are you even asking me? WTF is your point? 


ALL you seem to be doing, is harping on the fact that you believed the UN inspectors and I didn't.


SO? It sort of feels like you think you are making some kind of point. But you aren't.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> “Intent” at the time was crucial.
> 
> It is proof that it was the intent of Iraq to cooperate whatever it takes and that put the ball in the US court to take up the offer and test the genuineness of the offer.
> 
> Its more than words and it is a very observable fact that simultaneous with the offer the cooperation with the inspectors was started and never regressed.




Funny. YOu accept the stated words of Saddam Hussein, a brutal, genocidal dictator, as to his intent, but you don't trust mine. 

Which is your prerogative of course. 


But I, I did not trust Saddam Hussein's word. 


You claim the "proof" of his good intentions were easily observable. 


Well, I, and many others, did not see it that way.


Funny, how so many people are distrustful  of mass murdering, genocidal, brutal, totalitarian dictators. 


While you, find them so trustworthy.


Is it your principle that genocidal mass murderers should be assumed to be telling the Truth, barring strong evidence to the contrary?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> YOu accept the stated words of Saddam Hussein, a brutal, genocidal dictator, as to his intent, but you don't trust mine.


 

No. You are a liar when you say I accept SH intent, but don’t trust you.

You have nothing to say about the offer. There’s nothing to trust coming from you. 

You cannot bring evidence to this discussion that the offer was not real or genuine. 

I didn’t try to tell you the intent was genuine. I can tell you that it was made. 

*** Saddam Extends Invite to CIA
By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

I accept that the specific offer in December 2002 showed intent to cooperate by the Iraq regime.

This is a fact. It happened in history. It took place during the ramp up to the war. I did not making a conclusion at the time whether it was genuine or not. I did not have to do that. I am merely stating the fact that it happened shows that there was a clear demonstration that there was “intent” to cooperate. 

If they made the offer and the US sent some experts in and then they said they were just kidding then the intent was not there. But they were not tested. So the intent to cooperate must stand and because the action of cooperating with the inspectors was an easily observable fact. 

And that fact cannot be denied by the US or by you decision was made not to follow up on the offer. SH could do no more to show his intent was to cooperate directly with the United States out the middleman.

An offer to cooperate was a very observable fact that you cannot sanely deny.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. You are a liar when you say I accept SH intent, but don’t trust you.
> 
> You have nothing to say about the offer. There’s nothing to trust coming from you.
> 
> ...




"offer" equals words. The action I was looking for, was for him to just turn over his wmds. That would have been true co-operation. 


Why are you pretending to not get this? 


Do you feel that constantly spamming your talking points in a public forum is, in your own little way, spreading hate and division?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> But I, I did not trust Saddam Hussein's word.



What is there that requires trust on your part.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA
By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

If the offer was real and W’s claim that he wanted to disarm peacefully were true then he gives the CIA a chance to get on the ground in Iraq and prove out they evidence they had.

If the offer was not real and the agents are blocked / the case for war is even stronger.

Its not a matter of trusting SH word at all. 

You don’t trust it so you test it.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What is there that requires trust on your part.
> 
> Saddam Extends Invite to CIA
> By | Fox News
> ...




Iraq is the size of TEXAS. If Saddam was serious about cooperating, he could have just led the agents to the WMDs, and gave them trucks to cart them out of the country. 


What part of this is too hard for you to understand?


Being on the ground, DOESN'T MEAN FUCK.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> "offer" equals words. The action I was looking for, was for him to just turn over his wmds. That would have been true co-operation.



I did not ask you what action by SH you were looking for. We are talking about the cooperation that W requested the UN to look for..

Are you ever going explain why you reject this statement? 

NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080

Why start a war based on the belief that is based on the opposite of easily observable reality? 

There were no observable reports at the time by any news organization showing  that SH was not cooperating. Not cooperating such as blocking inspectors from entering a palace or factory or warehouse. All observance in the news media was that SH was cooperating.

No one on earth gave a flying fuck what you were looking for. Who do you think you are. Just read 1441 and watch Fox NEWS


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Being on the ground, DOESN'T MEAN FUCK.



Based on what?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I did not ask you what action by SH you were looking for. We are talking about the cooperation that W requested the UN to look for..
> 
> Are you ever going explain why you reject this statement?
> 
> ...




People disagree about "easily observable reality" all the time.

When you pretend to not know that, you make yourself look like a liar.



That you find it obvious, does not translate to other people.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Based on what?




Based on what I said. That you cut. Why are you being like this?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why did you just change the subject? We were talking about your CLAIM, that you pretend is "fact", even "easily observable fact" that Saddam was co-operating with un inspectors, and suddenly, you completely changed the subject?




You are a liar. I did not change the subject.

You wrote: 





Correll said:


> It was not easily observable.



So I want you on record as to why somehow it was easily observable after 1441 for you to say that SH was not cooperating. 

NFBW wrote: Why was it easily enough observable for you to declare that SH did not walk softly and poked the bear after 1441 was passed?  POST #3147. 

So instead of the diversion and bitching and moaning, what did you ‘observe’ on the public record that SH was not cooperating?


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. I did not change the subject.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> ...




The lack of him turning in his stockpile of WMDs.


As I have said repeatedly. 

Is there a number of times I have to repeat it, at which you will stop pretending to not know what my answer is?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> Barring that, I was not open to claims that he was "co-operating:.



Your are not being asked if you were open to claims that Iraq was cooperating. We know you only are open to claims made by the warmongers that turned out not to be true. 

Here is the point you are dodging: 

NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080

Its not about believing or trusting  ‘claims’ that Iraq was cooperating, It’s about the easily observable news stories at the time that Iraq was cooperating in accordance with 1441. We all could observe the news if we wanted to.  

W and whoever was involved with the intelligence became the only one’s to know that the appearance that Iraq was cooperating was wrong because: 

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The ‘claims’ that WMD was being hidden based on top secret intelligence gathering that was not shared with inspectors makes the claim that Iraq is not ‘really’ cooperating a very limited knowledge to very few. The easily observable fact that SH was outwardly cooperating meant nothing when W told the world that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors. 

That intelligence was wrong or W was lying that he had it. 

But Iraq was ‘cooperating’ because the bs about him hiding something was wrong. 




Correll said:


> It seems that you are trying to get me to admit that my motive was simply to see Muslims killed



I don’t care what your motives are to ignore reality and facts. I’m just pointing out that you do it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> The lack of him turning in his stockpile of WMDs.



SH was not required to turn over a stockpile of WMD under 1441 because it was not known under 1441 that he actually had them. 

It is a simple concept. I cannot do much to help a stupid human want to grasp it. 

So bitch and moan that repetition has set in but it is only so because you are so stupid you can’t get it.

This is one of your stupidest arguments. 

I really don’t mind you repeatedly making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> .Your are not being asked if you were open to claims that Iraq was cooperating. We know you only are open to claims made by the warmongers that turned out not to be true.
> 
> Here is the point you are dodging:



I'm not dodging anything. I am answering your question directly and clearly. You are the one dodging.




NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080



This portion of your post is nothing but spin. Retarded spin.  Iraq was not a "peaceful nation".  Your talk of "easily observable reality" is just you stating your position with confidence. Nothing more.




NotfooledbyW said:


> Its not about believing or trusting  ‘claims’ that Iraq was cooperating, It’s about the easily observable news stories at the time that Iraq was cooperating in accordance with 1441. We all could observe the news if we wanted to do.



YOu state it is nnot about believing or trusting claims, and then insist that I believe your claims.





NotfooledbyW said:


> W and whoever was involved with the intelligence became the only one’s to know that the appearance that Iraq was cooperating was wrong because:
> 
> “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.
> 
> The ‘claims’ that WMD was being hidden based on top secret intelligence gathering that was not shared with inspectors makes the claim that Iraq is not ‘really’ cooperating a very limited knowledge to very few. The easily observable fact that SH was outwardly cooperating meant nothing when W told the world that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors.




OR, Bush looked at the intelligence and came to an erroneous conclusion. 

When you pretend to not understand that as a possibility, you are pretending to be utterly and profoundly stupid.




NotfooledbyW said:


> That intelligence was wrong or W was lying that he had it.
> 
> But Iraq was ‘cooperating’ because the bs about him hiding something was wrong.




OR, the President looked at the intelligence and saw what he expected to see. As is normal for people. As  you have been doing, far WORSE than Bush did. 


Bush at least was able to admit to being wrong, upon new information. 


You stonewall to Death.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> SH was not required to turn over a stockpile of WMD under 1441 because it was not known under 1441 that he actually had them.
> 
> It is a simple concept. I cannot do much to help a stupid human want to grasp it.
> 
> ...




You asked what I wanted. Not what the bill required. 


That you pretend to not understand that, is you just stonewalling. 

My point stands.  If Saddam had wmds, he could turn them over whenever he wanted.

 Barring that any talk of him "co-operating" was bullshit to be dismissed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> My point stands. If Saddam had wmds, he could turn them over whenever he wanted.



Do you realize how stupid your statement is? 

“IF” he did not have WMDs he could not turn them over whenever he wanted. 

1441 required he provide a listing of what he had. He did that. 

He did not have anything of any significance. We did not find anything of any significance. 


it is the epitome of ignorance when you say that SH was not cooperating because he did not turn over stockpiles of WMD regardless of he had them.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you realize how stupid your statement is?
> 
> “IF” he did not have WMDs he could not turn them over whenever he wanted.
> 
> ...




If the "process" was not to get the wmds collected and destroyed then it was fucking stupid. 


You and people like you might be happy to just pretend to do shit. AMERICANS, not so much.


If Saddam wanted to "peacefully" resolve shit, he should have be prepared to turn over his WMDs.


Anything less, and as far as I am concerned, he was NOT co-operating.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> If the "process" was not to get the wmds collected and destroyed then it was fucking stupid.



You are an absolute idiot. The process was in fact to verify that Iraq was disarmed of WMD. If Iraq actually did have WMD, then yes, they would destroy them. Iraq did not have any.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are an absolute idiot. The process was in fact to verify that Iraq was disarmed of WMD. If Iraq actually did have WMD, then yes, they would destroy them. Iraq did not have any.




Sorry. WORDS would not convince me. Saddam was not credible. The un inspectors were not credible.

If you could not give me a pile of WMDs, to SEE that he was disarmed, I was not going to believe it.


YOU might find genocidal mass murderers credible, but I do not.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> If Saddam wanted to "peacefully" resolve shit, he should have be prepared to turn over his WMDs.



No. He cooperated with the inspectors so they did not have to take his word for anything and then he needed to allow long term monitoring to go on forever if necessary if he wanted sanctions to be lifted.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. He cooperated with the inspectors so they did not have to take his word for anything and then he needed to allow long term monitoring to go on forever if necessary if he wanted sanctions to be lifted.



If he was truly co-operating, he could have just turned over his wmds.


D'uh.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> YOU might find genocidal mass murderers credible, but I do not.



I didn’t find SH to be credible that he was not hiding WMD until W admitted that he did not have them. So why in the hell are you lying about me now? 

The observation that Iraq was outwardly cooperating for months prior to the invasion had nothing to do with accepting SH’s credibility. 

That diversion does you no good.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I didn’t find SH to be credible that he was not hiding WMD until W admitted that he did not have them. So why in the hell are you lying about me now?
> 
> The observation that Iraq was outwardly cooperating for months prior to the invasion had nothing to do with accepting SH’s credibility.
> 
> That diversion does you no good.




Not sure what you are talking about. President Bush did not "admit that" to long after the time period we are discussing.


Are you pretending to be too stupid to understand the concept of linear time?


My point stands. 


If Saddam was truly co-operating, he could have turned over his stock pile of wmds, and all the talk of "being on the ground" and "being granted access" and such bullshit process shit, would be moot.


Barring that, any words from Saddam or hte un inspectors, were not credible.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> If he was truly co-operating, he could have just turned over his wmds.



like I said 

* 		#3,080
NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080

That includes warmongering idiots like you that make up your very own warmongering rules about what the 1441 requirement for cooperation was. 

You are a stupid human.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> like I said
> 
> *         #3,080
> NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080
> ...




You asked about MY goals. I have been clear that I never gave a fuck about the UN.


You quoting the UN at me, is like a religious person quoting the bible to a godless lefty. 


My point stands. I did not believe that Saddam was co-operating. You saying over and over again, how you found the word of a genocidal mass murderer to be inherently credible,  is moot as the topic is MY views. 


How many times will you need me to explain to you, this mindless simple point, before you get it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> My point stands



Every time you say that we can rest assured that your point fell down.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> You saying over and over again, how you found the word of a genocidal mass murderer to be inherently credible, is moot as the topic is MY views.



You are a liar. I did not find SH’s word credible. When you have to lie about me you have zero credibility.


----------



## Correll (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Every time you say that we can rest assured that your point fell down.




President Bush did not "admit that" to long after the time period we are discussing.


Are you pretending to be too stupid to understand the concept of linear time?


My point stands.


If Saddam was truly co-operating, he could have turned over his stock pile of wmds, and all the talk of "being on the ground" and "being granted access" and such bullshit process shit, would be moot.


Barring that, any words from Saddam or hte un inspectors, were not credible.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> You asked about MY goals.



No! You attacked this and told lie after lie after lie: 

* 		#3,080
NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080

I’m not going to let you get away with lying about a war that killed half a million Iraqis that you say you support.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I didn’t find SH to be credible that he was not hiding WMD until W admitted that he did not have them. So why in the hell are you lying about me now?






Correll said:


> Not sure what you are talking about. President Bush did not "admit that" to long after the time period we are discussing.



When W Admitted it I could also accept with every one else that SH was not lying before the invasion. 

You lied that I found SH credible prior to the invasion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> If Saddam was truly co-operating, he could have turned over his stock pile of wmds,



No he could not if he did not have any. We found out after the invasion that he did not have any. Your point fell down face-planted in a pile if your own bullshit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> The un inspectors were not credible.



You are a CHENEY anti-UN warmonger so of course you opine that. And since you have demonstrated zero affinity for facts your opinion on that must be discarded from intelligent discussions.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

Correll said:


> You quoting the UN at me, is like a religious person quoting the bible to a godless lefty.



I’m not quoting the UN at you. I am reminding you that 1441 is a historical document that W had drafted and got approved as official US IRAQ policy. It has the requirement for SH to cooperate laid out and your made up shit requirement is not in it. 

Your insistence that SH comply with your special rule is a sign that you are going insane.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are not disagreeing with me, you are in dishonest denial of the fact that inspections were working with cooperation from the regime from December 2002 through March 17 2003.
> 
> What you say means nothing because it is not backed by an explanation as to why you ‘believe’ SH was not cooperating - all you got us that you believe it.





Correll said:


> It does not matter whether or not it was true. At the time I did not believe it.




Do you really believe that if you do not believe something is true - it does not matter if it is true or not? 

I wrote you are in dishonest denial of the fact that inspections were working with cooperation from the regime from December 2002 through March 17 2003. 

 And you responded: “ It does not matter whether or not it was true. At the time I did not believe it.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> The case for war was not solely based on wmds.



BUSH43 March 6 2003 “I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. *President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference.

Correll what do you think W means when he told reporters that he hoped, “ this can be done peacefully”?  

YES or NO. If Iraq could be disarmed “peacefully” would there be an invasion and war that would cause half a million Iraqis to die.

Bitch and moan all you want about the first question, But then could you be so kind as to answer the second question - yes or no?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one.



You are on record here that the multi-reason case for war was made on the date 
that the AUMF was passed in September 2002. 

How do you explain US Iraq War/Peace policy a month later when W had a draft written for submission to the UNSC and got it passed unanimously. UNSC RES 1441 says right in it that SH has been granted a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with his WMD disarmament obligations.

All who witnessed the passage and implementation of 1441 understood that immediate and unfettered inspections leading to verification that Iraq was disarmed would leave SH in power which meant war would be avoided. 

W understood that and said he favored avoiding war as well.

So Correll there could be no case for war made for one reason or a hundred reasons when US policy becomes one policy aligned with the UNSC that excludes war as a necessary option if inspections resume and are conducted properly. 

That means SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. 

There is that precise explanation  as to why justification for war in Iraq was centered solely on the threat of WMD remaining under SH’s control. SH could avoid war but he had to be verified compliant on his agreement to be disarmed and with the long term monitoring that was to follow the last round of inspections..

Do you agree Correll ? There was only one reason for war - If SH did not comply under 1441 by failing to take a final opportunity to comply.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. AND, that authorization was NOT limited to WMDs



It was limited to whatever W shall determine in the future is the case for war. 

WHERAS the little dog laughed to see such a sight and the dish ran away with the spoon: 

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 --

As he determines 

As he determines

As he determines

As he determines

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

Continuing threat 

Continuing threat 

Continuing threat 


(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Relevant Resolutions 

Relevant Resolutions 

Relevant Resolutions 

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that --

Make his determination that --

Make his determination that --

Make his determination that --

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions 

WHERAS the dish running away with the spoon was not an alternative or parallel case for war unless W Determined that such a thing was a threat to National security…..

It is a fact that W determined after March 6 that SH was hiding the most lethal WMD from inspectors and in accordance with the AUMF, peaceful inspections supported in the AUMF WERE not going to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and therefore war was necessary. 

Thus, W’s determination was as far removed from reality as the cow who jumped over the moon.

But W Made removing WMD the sole purpose of the war.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No! You attacked this and told lie after lie after lie:
> 
> *         #3,080
> NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.  post #3080
> ...




YOu are so silly. That I "say" I support?

Do you think I am lying about my support of the invasion, or are you just talking nonsense?


AND, so much stupid spin. That is what people do, when they know that their point is weak. THey try to stuff their posts with emotion and bullshit to try to hide that fact. 



My point stands. When you say stupid shit like "what warmongers believe" YOU are changing the topic to MY PERSONAL VIEWS. 


And then you whine like a faggot when I respond about what I FUCKING THINK and you have the gall to argue with me, as though you can define what I thought or think. 


You are being absurd. You are argued  yourself into the worst corner I think I have ever seen and you continue to stonewall.


ALL you have done, is reveal yourself to be a hateful, anti-American bigot, with asperbergers.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> When W Admitted it I could also accept with every one else that SH was not lying before the invasion.
> 
> You lied that I found SH credible prior to the invasion.




We were talking about our views and actions BEFORE the invasion. Now you are citing information that you did not have, ie President Bush's admission, till long after that time period.


When you do shit like this, you are ironically doing the same type of mistake that President Bush did. 

You are allowing your emotions and preconceived ideas, to twist your thinking and perceptions to the point you make a mistake.


A hostile person, could take shit like this, when you pretend to not understand the concept of linear time, and present it as evidence that you are completely full of shit or lying, or some such ism or ist, or what have you.


BUT, in reality, you are just being a normal person, ie allowing what you WANT to see, to effect what you actually perceive when you look at, or think back at something.



That you refuse to understand this is normal. Studies have shown that we people are confronted with undeniable proof that they are wrong, that instead of admitting it, they double down. 


SO, now, are you going to be normal and refuse to admit your error, or are you going to double down?


President Bush was man enough to admit he was wrong. Are you?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No he could not if he did not have any. We found out after the invasion that he did not have any. Your point fell down face-planted in a pile if your own bullshit.




We were talking about our perceptions and thinking PRIOR to the invasion. As I suspected  your logic is based on information you did not have at the time. 


So, what was your REAL reason for trusting the word of a genocidal mass murderer?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a CHENEY anti-UN warmonger so of course you opine that. And since you have demonstrated zero affinity for facts your opinion on that must be discarded from intelligent discussions.




Said the man who can't grasp the idea that time flows forward. 

The UN inspectors wanted PEACE. They would have been happy to keep the "process" going forever, as long as it prevented war. That made them not credible.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m not quoting the UN at you. I am reminding you that 1441 is a historical document that W had drafted and got approved as official US IRAQ policy. It has the requirement for SH to cooperate laid out and your made up shit requirement is not in it.
> 
> Your insistence that SH comply with your special rule is a sign that you are going insane.




I never claimed that what I would have accepted was in that document. We were talking about why I did not find Saddam credible.


Why are you bringing up some stupid UN document when we are discussing MY thoughts and what I would have accepted as proof of credibility?


My point stands. I did not find Saddam credible. I have explained why. Do you want to address that, or would you like talk some more unrelated shit in the hopes that I will forget that you are not addressing my point?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you really believe that if you do not believe something is true - it does not matter if it is true or not?
> 
> I wrote you are in dishonest denial of the fact that inspections were working with cooperation from the regime from December 2002 through March 17 2003.
> 
> And you responded: “ It does not matter whether or not it was true. At the time I did not believe it.”




When we are discussing my views and reasons for supporting the invasion, that is correct. 


You have to judge me based on what I knew at the time, even if what I knew or believed was in error.


Is that what this is all about?


You want to rewrite history so that those that supported the war, are presented in history as KNOWINGLY LYING to have a war so that they,  a bunch of "white Christian Nationalists" could kill a bunch of "innocent Muslims" because "bloodthirsty warmongers"?


WOW. You are even more dishonest and hateful than I realized. And simpler. 


That is a pathetic goal. And quite evil.


I was right, You are just here to spread hate and division.


WHY DO YOU HATE SO MUCH?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> BUSH43 March 6 2003 “I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. *President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference.
> 
> Correll what do you think W means when he told reporters that he hoped, “ this can be done peacefully”?
> 
> ...




Saying that the case for war was not based solely on WMDs, does not mean that the legal JUSTIFICATION for war and/or the political support for the war did not require that portion of the argument. 


Seriously Not, when you ask stupid questions like this, you are pretending to be stupid. YOu do realize this, right?


It amazes me how little liberals care about making themselves look, really really stupid. I mean fucking retarded.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are on record here that the multi-reason case for war was made on the date
> that the AUMF was passed in September 2002.
> 
> How do you explain US Iraq War/Peace policy a month later when W had a draft written for submission to the UNSC and got it passed unanimously. UNSC RES 1441 says right in it that SH has been granted a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with his WMD disarmament obligations.
> ...





I do not agree. Indeed, your words show that you do not either. Why did you use the word "centered"?


If there is only ONE reason, an argument doesn't have to be "centered". It rests solely on that reason.


It is when there are multiple reasons that an argument can be thus "centered" so as to resting more strongly on that one argument, AT ONE POINT IN TIME or to get agreement from a specific audience. 


BUT, that does not mean that the debate that went on before, did not happen. or that the other reasons, that certain documentation might be "centered one" are not still there, in the minds of people and as policy goals. 


I see now why are you so oddly obsessed with this. You to make it all about the WMDs, then twist the presentation of the issue, so that you can pretend that the "bloodthirsty warmongers" had no reason at all for their support of the invasion.


The real take away here is, that you have realized that the TRUTH, is completely useless to you, for making the case for your agenda. 


All you have, is lies. You know that what you want is wrong and cannot be supported with the Truth, but you want it anyways.



It must be quite monstrous. 



What is your vision for the future of this country?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It was limited to whatever W shall determine in the future is the case for war.
> 
> WHERAS the little dog laughed to see such a sight and the dish ran away with the spoon:
> 
> ...




As time went on, he grew or allowed the debate to become more focused on that issue. 


That does not change what went before. 


Your desire to rewrite history, based on later events, is quite orwellian.


YOu are quite the bad person.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> That does not change what went before.



What went before did not change at all. it was always about what W was going to determine including no war at all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> t is when there are multiple reasons that an argument can be thus "centered" so as to resting more strongly on that one argument, AT ONE POINT IN TIME or to get agreement from a specific audience.



are you in agreement that the determination that war was required was not made by W in October 2002, or November or December or January 2003 or February or before March 06 2003? 

What event or Resolution of an issue was W waiting for all that time? It was mentioned in the AUMF.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why are you bringing up some stupid UN document



Its a forward looking path on US IRAQ policy that is from a key reference in the AUMF and a key document to all the historical events that took place during the ramp up to war that you support from the moment it was passed.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What went before did not change at all. it was always about what W was going to determine including no war at all.




It was about what it was about at the time. What President Bush said or did LATER, did not change what occurred before.


Your pretense of not getting this, is not credible.


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2021)

Nope.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> are you in agreement that the determination that war was required was not made by W in October 2002, or November or December or January 2003 or February or before March 06 2003?
> 
> What event or Resolution of an issue was W waiting for all that time? It was mentioned in the AUMF.




I have no concern about those details. Not now, not then. I have told you what my position was on the issue at that time.. Nothing you say is going to change that. Nothing you say CAN change that. 

We are discussing the PAST. That you disagree with my opinion that I held at that time, cannot change the fact that I held it. 


Do you understand that?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Its a forward looking path on US IRAQ policy that is from a key reference in the AUMF and a key document to all the historical events that took place during the ramp up to war that you support from the moment it was passed.




That you cut, you dishonest partisan hack.



"when we are discussing MY thoughts and what I would have accepted as proof of credibility?"


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> So @Correll there could be no case for war made for one reason or a hundred reasons when US policy becomes one policy aligned with the UNSC that excludes war as a necessary option if inspections resume and are conducted properly.
> 
> That means SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors.
> 
> There is that precise explanation as to why justification for war in Iraq was centered solely on the threat of WMD remaining under SH’s control. SH could avoid war but he had to be verified compliant on his agreement to be disarmed and with the long term monitoring that was to follow the last round of inspections..





Correll said:


> BUT, that does not mean that the debate that went on before, did not happen.



I am not saying the debate about the “dish running away with the spoon” did not happen. Its still where it always was. 

In the context of the full paragraphs above what do you think I am telling you in this? 


NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am not saying the debate about the “dish running away with the spoon” did not happen. Its still where it always was.
> 
> In the context of the full paragraphs above what do you think In telling you in this?
> 
> ...




That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds. 


Which changes nothing, nor disagrees with any point I have ever made. So, why are you going on and on about it?


Your attempt to rewrite history so that you can lie about people, is not a legitimate goal. 


You are a bad person,  a bigot actively working to spread hate and division, to push an agenda, that you won't be honest about, but that you know you cannot sell, without lots of lying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> We are discussing the PAST. That you disagree with my opinion that I held at that time, cannot change the fact that I held it.




We are discussing this:

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766 


You are entitled to believe whatever you believed to be true at the time. You are not entitled to rewrite history and the facts to match the stupid things you say you believed at the time. 

I’m entitled to defend the truth and history from reality deniers and outright liars like you and the purpose is to never see our President start a war based on lies like Trump says and sit back and watch half a million innocent people die over a mistake. 

Piss and moan about me all you like. I’m not going anywhere.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds.
> 
> Which changes nothing, nor disagrees with any point I have ever made. So, why are you going on and on about it?
> 
> ...



Correll has now gone into broken record mode when it becomes obvious he won’t answer point specific questions.

So I’ll continue my point with or without hiim as time permits. 

NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

The FACT that war was avoidable on the one condition of Iraq being disarmed means all the other reasons Correll says were the basis of going to war,  cannot be a basis for war when there was going to be no war if disarming of WMD was not involved or if it was seen to be being fully resolved. 

What Correll is saying is an impossibility.

I  will support this more fully in due time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What do you think I am telling you in this?
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187





Correll said:


> That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds.



Nope. Its not about the focus of discussions at all. 

Its about what was actually happening in real time. And what would happen if Iraq was allowed to be disarmed peacefully. That result would have meant no war. 

And there was no other backup case or reasons for war in existence or in the AUMF If Iraq and the inspectors were  allowed to disarm Iraq peacefully.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> We are discussing this:
> 
> Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766
> 
> ...




You have admitted that you are using hindsight as part of  your supporting argument. 


That is YOU rewriting history. 


You are the one "pissing and moaning" about shit no one else cares about anymore. I am the one that "isn't going anywhere".

Although I might actually. I have been getting kinda of busy. If I do drop out, please know that it is only due to real life getting too busy, not being offended by your.... antics, or anything like that. Don't take it personally.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll has now gone into broken record mode when it becomes obvious he won’t answer point specific questions.
> 
> So I’ll continue my point with or without hiim as time permits.
> 
> ...




I answered your question. I clearly stated what it meant. imo, of course. 


I then pointed out that it does not matter and why it does not matter. 


How many times do I have to answer your question before you address my answer?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Nope. Its not about the focus of discussions at all.
> 
> Its about what was actually happening in real time. And what would happen if Iraq was allowed to be disarmed peacefully. That result would have meant no war.
> 
> And there was no other backup case or reasons for war in existence or in the AUMF If Iraq and the inspectors were  allowed to disarm Iraq peacefully.




Which shows that the WMDs, were a crucial part of the JUSTIFICATION for the war, but not that there were not other reasons or even justifications. 


I agreed with all of this months ago. Why are you still whining about it? Is there an additional point that you are trying to make but can't for some odd reason?


WHAT IS YOUR FUCKING POINT? GET TO IT ALREADY. I AM ALREADY MIDDLE AGED. I WANT TO FINISH THIS THREAD BEFORE I DIE.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> I answered your question.



You are a liar. 

You did not address the key point that there was to be no war under US Iraq policy if Iraq were allowed to be disarmed peacefully. And that meant that all the other arguments, rationales, cases, and or reasons for supporting war,  put together or standing alone, were never ever going to be a case for war if WMD was not included or involved. 

There was to be no war if IRAQ was allowed to be disarmed peacefully. 

You refuse to accept reality.

its not my reality or an opinion about reality- it is reality.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar.
> 
> You did not address the key point that there was to be no war under US Iraq policy if Iraq were allowed to be disarmed peacefully. And that meant that all the other arguments, rationales, cases, and or reasons for supporting war,  put together or standing alone, were never ever going to be a case for war if WMD was not included or involved.
> 
> ...




1. I did answer it. Go back and read it. Try to be less emotional.

2. If you put nine one pound weights on a scale and nothing happens, and then you put a TENTH one pound weight on the scale and it suddenly moves, that does not mean that that last weight is the only weight. Your argument is dumb.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Which shows that the WMDs, were a crucial part of the JUSTIFICATION for the war, but not that there were not other reasons or even justifications.



The point is there were no reason or reasons other than disarming Iraq in the scenario that he would not be disarmed peacefully*! for a justification for starting a preemptive war that killed half a million Iraqis. 

It is an indisputable fact and firmly grounded in reality that there was to be no war because the dish ran away with the spoon in 1983. There was plenty of supportive conditions for why SH had to be confronted to disarm (he was evil incarnate) or be removed from power but his history of evil never rose to a justification for war as the WMD standing alone did. 

You addressed none of that.

*! As stated in the AUMF.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. If you put nine one pound weights on a scale and nothing happens, and then you put a TENTH one pound weight on the scale and it suddenly moves, that does not mean that that last weight is the only weight. Your argument is dumb.



If you don’t put the WMD weight on the scale nothing happens ever - there is no war. The nine weights do not move scale 

If Iraq was allowed to be disarmed peacefully - the tenth weight does not go on - Nothing happens - there is no war. 

You are a dumb ass.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The point is there were no reason or reasons other than disarming Iraq in the scenario that he would not be disarmed peacefully*! for a justification for starting a preemptive war that killed half a million Iraqis.
> ....



That is simply not true. You are trying to rewrite history.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> If you don’t put the WMD weight on the scale nothing happens ever - there is no war. The nine weights do not move scale
> 
> If Iraq was allowed to be disarmed peacefully - the tenth weight does not go on - Nothing happens - there is no war.
> 
> You are a dumb ass.




But teh other weights are still there. And are part of the reason the scale moved. 


Your saying otherwise is just you stonewalling.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. I did answer it.



you are a liar. You have not addressed the reality that under US policy at the time SH stays in power if he was successfully disarmed and there was no other reason to start a war ever mentioned or suggested by anybody except maybe nutcases like you here and there and the PNAC warmongers who figured Iraq would make a nice base for attacking Iran and Syria.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is simply not true.



What’s true then? Are you saying that US policy was that once Iraq is disarmed peacefully W was authorized to invade Iraq anyway to get the Kuwait art back?

Explain yourself. Based on what?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> you are a liar. You have not addressed the reality that under US policy at the time SH stays in power if he was successfully disarmed and there was no other reason to start a war ever mentioned or suggested by anybody except maybe nutcases like you here and there and the PNAC warmongers who figured Iraq would make a nice base for attacking Iran and Syria.




YOu asked, "what do you think he was telling you with this?"


And I answered,



"That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds."


You missed it, for reasons having to do with your very poor communication skills. 


Will you now address my answer, or get to your point, or do something other than rave in a circle?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What’s true then? Are you saying that US policy was that once Iraq is disarmed peacefully W was authorized to invade Iraq anyway to get the Kuwait art back?
> 
> Explain yourself. Based on what?




I am saying that what you claimed was not true. 


I have also pointed out in the past, that you have a. accepted the principle of collateral damage so your whining about it is, quite unseemly. 


AND, that your numbers show you putting the responsibility of other people's actions on US. Which is not reasonable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> But teh other weights are still there. And are part of the reason the scale moved.



But you said the scale didn’t move until the 10th weight went on. That’s because all nine weights combined were not enough to move the scale and start the war. There was only one weight to justify war and that was disarming Iraq of WMD.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> YOu asked, "what do you think he was telling you with this?"
> 
> And I answered,
> 
> "That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds."



There is nothing in your answer that addresses this reality and what that realty means to you. 

NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> I am saying that what you claimed was not true.



Why is it not true?


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> But you said the scale didn’t move until the 10th weight went on. That’s because all nine weights combined were not enough to move the scale and start the war. There was only one weight to justify war and that was disarming Iraq of WMD.



LOL!!! When your defense is to be too stupid to understand that NINE is more than ONE, you make yourself look retarded.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is nothing in your answer that addresses this reality and what that realty means to you.
> 
> NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187




Dude. You are being pitiful.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why is it not true?




Because there were other reasons. As repeatedly and constantly explained to you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

“constantly explained” 101 


Correll said:


> Because there were other reasons. As repeatedly and constantly explained to you.



You called me a liar in June.  Let’s examine exactly what you mean by “constantly explained” to me 

NFBW wrote to struth: Justification for the war had to be based on a threat such as SH trying to hide real WMD. POST #1518

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW para1 wrote: It was the sole basis to confront and launch. Bush agreed to 1441 whether you like it or not - and inspectors had one task - to determine if Iraq was in compliance with his ceasefire agreement with respect to WMD and WMD’s alone. POST#1528

We got the rope-a-dope!
Correll wrote: "Confront and launch"? wtf does that mean?  POST#1535

We got its irrelevant if I say It’s irrelevant! 
Correll  wrote: Your claims about ALL of his statements during a certain period of time, twenty years ago, are irrelevant and dismissed. POST#1535 

Ditto! 
Correll wrote:  It is irrelevant that the inspectors had no other task. POST#1539

word salad or something! ????? 
Correll wrote: If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case, then focusing solely on the hunt for the wmds, in the timing of the war, is misleading at best. POST#1548

Then we were taken down the FLAWED AUMF track! 
Correll Wrote: The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one. POST#1552

Correll Wrote: Your claim that we cannot know the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of WMDs, is nonsense, because the case for war is a matter of public record. POST#1552

W’s word three weeks before the invasion are censured during this discussion 
Correll Wrote: It is not a matter of Bush's opinion, especially his opinion at a later date. POST#1552

TO BE CONTINUED as a matter of record based on the facts.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> “constantly explained” 101
> 
> 
> You called me a liar in June.  Let’s examine exactly what you mean by “constantly explained” to me
> ...




You are spending way too much time on this.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Dude. You are being pitiful.



You have no recovery from hitting you with this fact. 

NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

On the positives side “SH can only succeed in avoiding war if he cooperates on the one and ONLY ONE reason why W sent the Inspectors there. To verify the declaration by Iraq that it was disarmed.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> You are spending way too much time on this.



Not really: 

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519


----------



## struth (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> “constantly explained” 101
> 
> 
> You called me a liar in June.  Let’s examine exactly what you mean by “constantly explained” to me
> ...


Nobody cares what you have to say anymore Baghdad Bob


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

I’m not seeing Correll backing up his nasty lie about me. 

Correll wrote:  You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments. POST#1554

NFBW wrote:  Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s determination as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization. POST#1555

NFBW wrote:  Bush determined there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. POST#1555

Jim Angle. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him.

NFBW wrote:  What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD  POST#1555

Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations. POST #1556

NFBW wrote:  I’m not ignoring it. The AUMF was designed around the idea that it would force Iraq to let inspectors in and it worked. POST #1557

NFBW wrote:  The AUMF authorized W to make a determination in the future. POST #1557

NFBW wrote:  W revealed his determination that ONLY real WMD would justify war. No other reason rose to the level of necessity for war. And that makes sense. POST #1557

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization. POST#1558

NFBW wrote: The AUMF didn’t set a policy to start a war for any of those reasons listed. when it was voted on it did not authorize disarming IRAQ of his WMDs Unless W determined that it was necessary in the future. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: THAT is exactly the policy that W was discussing at the news conference on March 6. He was making his determination known to the world that he still preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully.  POST #1559

NFBW wrote: Did W have the authority granted to him within the authorization to use force if he determined that an invasion of Iraq was not necessary? POST#1561

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: You found an off the cuff remark that you think support your position and you are ignoring all other evidence or information. POST#1565

NFBW wrote: on March 6, 2003 W made a public determination that the liberation of Iraq was not necessary if IRAQ WAS disarmed. The only case that would justify war in W’s determination was the case for continued possession of WMD. POST #1566 

Correll wrote: Don't know, don't care, at this point. POST#1568

NFBW wrote: Its not an off the cuff remark. W waiting to hear if Iraq was disarmed and and if he was in fact disarmed there would be no invasion. That’s a fact you cannot remove from reality. POST#1569

NFBW wrote:  The overall point is W had no intention of invading Iraq other than on the basis that SH was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors. POST#1572 

NFBW wrote: W did not invade Iraq to liberate it. The March 6 press conference makes that clear. W invaded Iraq because HE suspected WMD was being hidden there. POST#1572


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You have no recovery from hitting you with this fact.
> 
> NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187
> 
> On the positives side “SH can only succeed in avoiding war if he cooperates on the one and ONLY ONE reason why W sent the Inspectors there. To verify the declaration by Iraq that it was disarmed.”




I addressed it repeatedly, most recently refuting it with my ten one pound weights analogy.

You are the one not recovering from being hit.


----------



## struth (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> I addressed it repeatedly, most recently refuting it with my ten one pound weights analogy.
> 
> You are the one not recovering from being hit.


It's Baghdad Bob....he keeps repeating the same debunked lies over and over again.

He might consider working in the Xiden Press Office


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Not really:
> 
> Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519




You're now raving. The case for war was NOT solely based on wmds. YOu are being a lying idiot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> The case for war was NOT solely based on wmds.



DEFEND your argument then,


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> I addressed it repeatedly, most recently refuting it with my ten one pound weights analogy.



You are a Hopeless retard.





NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519
> 
> I’m not seeing Correll backing up his nasty lie about me.
> 
> ...


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519
> 
> I’m not seeing Correll backing up his nasty lie about me.
> 
> ...




As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, where if Saddam had provided undeniable proof that he was disarmed, that he would have had a difficult time going to war, with that one pound weight removed.


BUT, that does not change the fact that the other one pound weights were still on the scale. They just were not enough, by themselves to give President Bush the political support he felt he needed to go to war. 


None of this changes ANYTHING I have said before. YOu are just talking in circles, like a lunatic, thinking that you are making a point, when you are not.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> DEFEND your argument then,




I have, repeatedly. You are spending hours pouring over this thread. Just go back and reread all the times I not only made the case, but rubbed your face in it.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a Hopeless retard.




Said the man that is pretending to not understand that NINE POUNDS, is heavier than ONE pound.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Said the man that is pretending to not understand that NINE POUNDS, is heavier than ONE pound.



I say 9 pounds is exactly 9 pounds heavier than 1 pound.
You are a liar. . You are a liar a filthy liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> I have, repeatedly.



Where did you do that? 

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

I’m not seeing Correll backing up his nasty lie about me. 

Correll wrote:  You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments. POST#1554

NFBW wrote:  Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s determination as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization. POST#1555

NFBW wrote:  Bush determined there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. POST#1555

Jim Angle. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him.

NFBW wrote:  What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD  POST#1555

Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations. POST #1556

NFBW wrote:  I’m not ignoring it. The AUMF was designed around the idea that it would force Iraq to let inspectors in and it worked. POST #1557

NFBW wrote:  The AUMF authorized W to make a determination in the future. POST #1557

NFBW wrote:  W revealed his determination that ONLY real WMD would justify war. No other reason rose to the level of necessity for war. And that makes sense. POST #1557

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization. POST#1558

NFBW wrote: The AUMF didn’t set a policy to start a war for any of those reasons listed. when it was voted on it did not authorize disarming IRAQ of his WMDs Unless W determined that it was necessary in the future. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: THAT is exactly the policy that W was discussing at the news conference on March 6. He was making his determination known to the world that he still preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully.  POST #1559

NFBW wrote: Did W have the authority granted to him within the authorization to use force if he determined that an invasion of Iraq was not necessary? POST#1561

the broken record kicks in*!
Correll wrote: You found an off the cuff remark that you think support your position and you are ignoring all other evidence or information. POST#1565

NFBW wrote: on March 6, 2003 W made a public determination that the liberation of Iraq was not necessary if IRAQ WAS disarmed. The only case that would justify war in W’s determination was the case for continued possession of WMD. POST #1566 

Correll wrote: Don't know, don't care, at this point. POST#1568

NFBW wrote: Its not an off the cuff remark. W waiting to hear if Iraq was disarmed and and if he was in fact disarmed there would be no invasion. That’s a fact you cannot remove from reality. POST#1569

NFBW wrote:  The overall point is W had no intention of invading Iraq other than on the basis that SH was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors. POST#1572 

NFBW wrote: W did not invade Iraq to liberate it. The March 6 press conference makes that clear. W invaded Iraq because HE suspected WMD was being hidden there. POST#1572


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I say 9 pounds is exactly 9 pounds heavier than 1 pound.
> You are a liar. . You are a liar a filthy liar.




You said that without that ONE pound, the scale cannot move. Thus that ONE pound is what it is all about. 


You stand by that logic, by continuing to pretend that all the discussions and debate and ideas I heard in the debate on the war, sort of doesn't count, because of stuff that President Bush said later. As though Bush is the leader of a HIVE mind of which all his supporters were members.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

NFBW wrote:  What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD  POST#1555

Correll Do you have an answer yet. Or are you still thinking about it. You’ve had three months.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> 2. If you put nine one pound weights on a scale and nothing happens, and then you put a TENTH one pound weight on the scale and it suddenly moves, t





Correll said:


> You said that without that ONE pound, the scale cannot move. Thus that ONE pound is what it is all about.



 You are the one that says that the 9 pounds did not make the scale move – nothing happened. 9 pounds drives no need for a war. the 1 pound.  the WMD pound does drive the need for war. You are about as stupid as they make them.


You probably have that dazed look on your face that coach Jim Harbaugh has every year when the buckeyes beat his pansy wolverines.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> You stand by that logic, by continuing to pretend that all the discussions and debate and ideas I heard in the debate on the war, sort of doesn't count, because of stuff that President Bush said later.



That is nowhere close to what you were calling my logic. You are retarded if you think that’s what this is. 

Everything counts you fool. The dish ran away with the spoon counts, Biden’s objection, Dr Blix opinions, the AUMF, 1441. The pope, stupid you, yes Everything you fucking heard counts, Cheney war mongering. It all counts. 

But the most important thing that counts is the truth. And you cannot handle the truth.

Stop being such a whiny little bastard. What W said on March 6 proves that he was willing to forgo war if Iraq is disarmed peacefully. That means your argument that the war was decided in October 2002 with the passing of the AUMF is wrong. And that’s all it is. Now grow up, stop sniveling.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote:  What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD  POST#1555
> 
> Correll Do you have an answer yet. Or are you still thinking about it. You’ve had three months.




I've answered repeatedly. You are stuck on pretending that you don't understand the difference between an important reason and the SOLE reason. 


That is you being either very dishonest, or completely warped by your hate.


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are the one that says that the 9 pounds did not make the scale move – nothing happened. 9 pounds drives no need for a war. the 1 pound.  the WMD pound does drive the need for war. You are about as stupid as they make them.
> 
> 
> You probably have that dazed look on your face that coach Jim Harbaugh has every year when the buckeyes beat his pansy wolverines.




Nope. Just amazed at how desperate you are being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> I've answered repeatedly. Y



You did not answer this. You are a liar.  


NFBW wrote:  What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD  POST#1555


----------



## Correll (Aug 18, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is nowhere close to what you were calling my logic. You are retarded if you think that’s what this is.
> 
> Everything counts you fool. The dish ran away with the spoon counts, Biden’s objection, Dr Blix opinions, the AUMF, 1441. The pope, stupid you, yes Everything you fucking heard counts, Cheney war mongering. It all counts.
> 
> ...




I disgree. Barring him stepping down, or producing a sizable stock pile of WMDs, I don't see how he could have convinced people that he was in co-operating. 


As long as the wmds were not accounted for, it would have been possible that he was just hiding them.


That has been my position for the longest time. YOU are the one whining about it. My position has not changed in this entire thread. 

You desire to pretend that my position is somehow not valid so that you can assign motives and goals and paint me as a "blood thirsty warmonger" so that you can more effectively spread hate and division. 



You should change your name to HATEMONGER.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Barring him stepping down, or producing a sizable stock pile of WMDs, I don't see how he could have convinced people that he was in co-operating.



Like you say that was how you saw it. There is no relationship to reality when you see it that way. 

The entire world saw him cooperating including the Secretary of State of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA at the time who said this being the reason that war was not inevitable. 

IRAQ was cooperating and we will see if that cooperation continues. 

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

SECRETARY POWELL:  They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues

SECRETARY POWELL:  We've never said that war is inevitable.  The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution.  resolution? 

Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos 

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.

You cant make reality go away when you don’t like it by pissing and moaning like a potbellied Trump supporter who cant find a girlfriend.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> You desire to pretend that my position is somehow not valid



Your position is not valid because it strays from facts that were knowable at the time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll said:


> Barring him stepping down, or producing a sizable stock pile of WMDs, I don't see how he could have convinced people that he was in co-operating.



W Had to cut short the inspections because the whole damn world could see SH was outwardly cooperating. 

W could onlyvsay that Iraq was mysteriously hiding stuff and therefore was not really cooperating.

Thats the reality at the times


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

NFBW wrote: The case for the war was determined by W and it was solely on the basis of WMD. POST #1586 

Correll wrote:  1. The President does not determine the case for war, by himself. POST#1602

It is very clear that Correll is wrong. W was given the authorization to solely determine the case for war in the AUMF that was passed in October 2002. 

The AUMF is worded exactly that way; 

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

There is no ambiguity on this fact. Correll ‘s argument is absurd, and detached from reality.

And then, Bush made the sole determination after March 6 to start a war in Iraq because he told us that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2021)

Correll wrote Jul 17,  2020: after 9-11 the case for war with Iraq was made and made fairly well and convincingly. 



Correll said:


> after 9-11 the case for war with Iraq was made and made fairly well and convincingly.


  POST#186.


When exactly was the national debate and what was the year and the month that it ended with the warmongering side  winning the entitlement to build a democracy in Iraq by way of killing half a million Iraqis to get them there.


----------



## WTH_Progs? (Aug 18, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...




A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.  *Fuck you're stupid.  I really think you're too dumb to be lying.  NOTE:  I never supported the invasion.  Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you dumb PROG. *

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.  *ILMAO standing with you.  On a side, see the video below for your entertainment. *

Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure.   

Now these pathetic liars try to act like they were against the war all along, that is how pathetic Trumpers are.  *Link?*


These people don't even know what they support or oppose  *Says the leftist who voted for Xiden*


, they wait for Foxnews to tell them what to think, and then just go with it...*Fuck I don't watch Fox news.

Check out what your guy Biden did.......This is EXACTLY who XIDEN is and the complete irony of it is your POTUS made a SPECTACLE of your OP, hilarious.  If PROGS aint projecting they lyin'  "Twice in the last five weeks, Joe Biden has claimed that despite voting to authorize military force against Iraq in 2002, he opposed the Iraq war from “the moment” it began. That’s not accurate, and Biden now says he misspoke.


 *


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2021)

Correll wrote Jul 17,  2020: THe justifications and the goals were discussed and the nation came together behind it.  POST#186.



Correll said:


> after 9-11 the case for war with Iraq was made and made fairly well and convincingly. THe justifications and the goals were discussed and the nation came together behind it.


 POST#186.

Correll wrote Jul 17,  2020: I was initially skeptical but the idea of creating a liberal democratic state in the middle of the Middle East as an Ideological Pushback against Radical Islam eventually convinced me. POST#186.

Tell us Correll did Darkwind lose the national debate since you said the nation builder side won the grand national. debate.



Darkwind said:


> The problem is, the war was WON, but no one wanted to leave after that.
> 
> We did NOT support nation-building. War means you go in, break everything, then go home.



Darkwind wrote: No one on the right loved the war in Iraq. No one on the right loves war.

What they said then was that Iraq was a necessary war in order to get advantage in the war on terror.

The problem is, the war was WON, but no one wanted to leave after that.

We did NOT support nation-building. War means you go in, break everything, then go home. POST#11


I recall on the conservative side There were a lot of darkwinders out there wanting to Nuke the damn place and nation build it into a giant parking lot after things went south and we were not greeted as liberators


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote Jul 17,  2020: THe justifications and the goals were discussed and the nation came together behind it.  POST#186.
> 
> POST#186.
> 
> ...


You recall incorrectly.  There were a very small number of people who wanted to just nuke Iraq.  The rest of us wanted the threat that the butcher of Bahgdad represented in the war on terror, eliminated.   He was.

We should then have just left.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2021)

The question is not, “Should we replace Saddam?” The question is, “Should we wait until Saddam gives biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to terrorists?” Newt Gingrich October 16, 2002


Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639

I don’t see the “nation-build” argument in this major op-Ed. I only see WMD fear-mongering hype. 

So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq..

Strike Sooner than Later - USA Today -  Newt Gingrich October 16, 2002

If you apply Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s proposed guidelines for committing U.S. forces to the test case of replacing Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration meets its own criteria.

* First, is the proposed action truly necessary? The necessity of replacing Saddam Hussein is the unanimous view of not only the senior leadership of the United States and Great Britain. 

They concluded that allowing him to acquire weapons of mass destruction–weapons he is willing to use–would make the world dramatically more dangerous. 

That opinion is also held by former ambassador Richard Butler, who was the head of the United Nations inspections commission in Iraq.

* Second, is the proposed action achievable? No one seriously doubts that the United States and its coalition partners, including Britain, Australia, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, Italy, Romania, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands, are all prepared to succeed. 

Even Saudi Arabia and other nations have agreed to help if there is a U.N. resolution.

* Third, is it worth it? The bombing in Bali, Indonesia, should have reminded us that we are permanently at risk until those who support terrorism are defeated. 

The question is not, “Should we replace Saddam?” The question is, “Should we wait until Saddam gives biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to terrorists?”

We should not wait until Saddam has the full capacity to create terror around the planet and is able to blackmail with nuclear weapons. 





__





						Strike Sooner than Later | AEI
					

If you apply Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s proposed guidelines for committing U.S. forces to the test case of replacing Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration meets its own criteria. First, is the proposed action truly necessary? The necessity of replacing Saddam Hussein is the unanimous...




					www.aei.org
				




Waiting is not an option.

* Fourth, if there is to be action, we should act early, and we should have unrestricted options. The Bush administration has gotten congressional authorization, mobilized diplomatic and military forces, worked the U.N. aggressively and prepared and communicated with our allies. Moreover, the Bush administration will not restrict the options for success and ultimately will do what is necessary to win as rapidly as possible with minimum casualties.

* Finally, Rumsfeld calls for honesty with the American people. The president and many senior administration officials, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others, have been publicly explaining the case and presenting evidence for four months. 

The administration has been as candid about the risks as it has been honest about the dangerous road of inaction. 

For 11 years, Saddam has not responded to sanctions, diplomacy or 16 U.N. resolutions.

The only issue is whether the risks are greater now or whether the risks will be greater later. 

We learned with Adolf Hitler that moving early would have been less expensive and less dangerous and would have saved millions of lives.

I believe Rumsfeld’s guidelines make an overwhelming case for replacing Saddam as soon as possible.

Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at AEI.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> We should then have just left.



we couldn’t just take out the regime and leave a void for who knows what terrorist thugs to fill on too oc Iraq’s oil. 

WE could have kept up the NFZ in the north to keep the Kurds safe but the rest of Iraq plunges into chais and SUNNI SHIA sectarian violencez

SH Was a shit head but he kept the Terrorists elements away from his oil fields. 

did you want Al Qaeda to be funded with bkack marjet Iraqi oil? 

And there were all those stockpiles  of WMD. You want al Qaeda finding  them. 

I know there weren’t any but W had to spend a year looking when the inspectors only wanted three months and now are.

What does Iran do if we just break it and leave. Did you game it out?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2021)

*** America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? *** W

Correll wrote: That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it. POST#1598

Your argument sucks. The AUMF specifically authorized W to make a specific determination regarding relevant UN resolutions. My point is not reliant on W’s focus. 

NFBW wrote:  Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s determination as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization. POST#1555

NFBW wrote:  Bush determined there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. POST#1555

In W’s precise and clear words, my star witness testified at the time - Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441: 

*** America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? 

President George W. Bush
The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DC
November 8, 2002

Text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441


----------



## Correll (Aug 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Like you say that was how you saw it. There is no relationship to reality when you see it that way.
> 
> The entire world saw him cooperating including the Secretary of State of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA at the time who said this being the reason that war was not inevitable.
> 
> ...




Not sure what your point is. Lots of talk.  Powell had an opinion. It was different than mine. I've disagreed with him many times on many issues. 


You seem to be moving away from the point I made. Is this more of your circular debating technique?


----------



## Correll (Aug 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your position is not valid because it strays from facts that were knowable at the time.




You don't know what the meaning of the word, "Facts" is. You have admitted to using hindsight in your supporting logic.


----------



## Correll (Aug 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> W Had to cut short the inspections because the whole damn world could see SH was outwardly cooperating.
> 
> W could onlyvsay that Iraq was mysteriously hiding stuff and therefore was not really cooperating.
> 
> Thats the reality at the times




IMO, President Bush saw that Saddam and the UN inspectors could and would string the "process" along forever, without the WMDs, ever being found.

So, it was a failure. 


That was a valid conclusion to reach, based on what we knew at the time. 


You will of course, not address this directly or honestly.


----------



## Correll (Aug 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The case for the war was determined by W and it was solely on the basis of WMD. POST #1586
> 
> Correll wrote:  1. The President does not determine the case for war, by himself. POST#1602
> 
> ...




LOL!!! Now you are taking statements and policies from completely different contexts and mashing them together to create imaginary conversations and asking me to join in, picking up one side of your fantasy?


I respectfully decline.


----------



## Correll (Aug 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote Jul 17,  2020: THe justifications and the goals were discussed and the nation came together behind it.  POST#186.
> 
> POST#186.
> 
> ...




Obviously we DID engage in nation building.  Also, I doubt that only CONSERVATIVES were angry with Saddam. Indeed, I recall many strong words from Bill Clinton and Joe Biden about Saddam.


----------



## Correll (Aug 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The question is not, “Should we replace Saddam?” The question is, “Should we wait until Saddam gives biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to terrorists?” Newt Gingrich October 16, 2002
> 
> 
> Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639
> ...




That was a stupidly long post. Ask it again, more concisely with less obvious propaganda talking points.


----------



## Correll (Aug 19, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> *** America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? *** W
> 
> Correll wrote: That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it. POST#1598
> 
> ...



You said that. My response stands. Get to something new.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2021)

Correll said:


> Ask it again ..



NFBW wrote:  So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq.. POST#3261.


----------



## Correll (Aug 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote:  So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq.. POST#3261.




Oh, I saw some live discussion on tv, with him, Krauthammer and some young female doctor.  It was great to see Gingrich and Krauthammer together. 

I felt really bad for the young woman. She was quite smart, and accomplished and easy on the eyes. But she was on stage with GAINTS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2021)

NFBW wrote: So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq.. POST#3261.



Correll said:


> Oh, I saw some live discussion on tv




The question in POST#3261 was clear, when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq? 

So when did the Gingrich/Krauthammer nation building show take place? What year? What month?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> But she was on stage with GAINTS.



Did one of your giants say this during that show?

*** 064733 Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.

Why Correll would there be a “credibility problem” if no WMD were found and SH was right?  What was your “giant” worried about? 

*** 065137 I don't have any doubt that we will locate them. I think it takes time. They've obviously been deeply hidden, and it will require that we get the information from people who know where they are. If you're looking for anthrax and VX gas, which can be hidden in a basement or a closet, in a country the size of Germany, you can understand how in five weeks we might not have stumbled across them.


----------



## Correll (Aug 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: So when exactly was it that Newt sold you on the ‘nation-building rationale and basis for attacking Iraq.. POST#3261.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't remember. Naturally. What kind of freak would remember that?


What is the point anyways? Are you seriously trying to prove that I'm lying about my reasons? To what end? I think I've demonstrated that I'm not afraid to take some heat. 


You are freaking NUTS.


----------



## Correll (Aug 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Did one of your giants say this during that show?
> 
> *** 064733 Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.
> 
> ...





I don't recall the details. It's been many years. I mean, really, what kind of weirdo would expect me to have prefect memory of a TV show from years ago?


Seriously dude. What is wrong with you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't remember. Naturally. What kind of freak would remember that?



You don’t remember whether it was before the invasion or after the invasion. How could you not remember that?


----------



## Correll (Aug 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You don’t remember whether it was before the invasion or after the invasion. How could you not remember that?




Are you being serious?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> You have admitted to using hindsight in your supporting logic.



You are a liar. I base everything I say on public information that was knowable in real time.



Correll said:


> Are you being serious?



Yes. You called me a lIar.

NFBW wrote to struth: Justification for the war had to be based on a threat such as SH trying to hide real WMD. POST #1518

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

You say the case for war for you was made on tv when KRAUTHAMMER and GINGRICH sold you on the brilliance of experimental nation building. 

Trouble is you can’t remember if they were on tv making the case before or after the war started. And you piss and moan because I expect that you would at least know if you are recalling your pre-invasion  or post-invasion evaluation of supporting the war. 

You cant recall but you call me a liar. 

When was the KRAUTHAMMER/ GINGRICH nation building experiment show that you claim was a case/justification for war?


----------



## Correll (Aug 20, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. I base everything I say on public information that was knowable in real time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You asked me specifically what the date was, that the tv show took place. 

I told you that I did not recall.


YOu took that "fact" and invented the bit, that I did not recall whether it was before or after the invasion.


That was shit you made up. 


You then attacked me, based on shit you made up.


YOu are bat shit crazy and a troll and a partisan hack.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2021)

ONE DETERMINATION. 

Correll reply to POST#3263:  You said that. My response stands. Get to something new. POST#3270.

“America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not” W speech in  November 2002. 

Perhaps Correll accidentally missed replying to the content of POST#3263. He called me a liar because I know for a fact that the only case for invading Iraq was the threat of  WMD in SH’s control meant he had to be removed. 

POST#3263 informed Correll that my source regarding the above fact is W himself. W Affirmed I am telling the truth. But Correll calls the truth a lie: 

How convenient it was for Correll to skip the following points from Post#3263.

NFBW wrote:  The AUMF specifically authorized W to make a specific determination regarding relevant UN resolutions. POST#3263

NFBW wrote:  Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s determination as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization. POST#1555

NFBW wrote:  Bush determined there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. POST#1555

NFBW wrote: In W’s precise and clear words, my star witness testified at the time. POST#3263

 - Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441: *** “America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?” POST#3263

President George W. Bush - The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DC November 8, 2002 *** POST#3263


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> My response stands


 … although the terms in 1441 do not include conducting the KRAUTHAMMER/GINGRICH nation building experiment. 

Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441: 

 “America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?” 

President George W. Bush - The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DC November 8, 2002.  POST#3263

Apparently Correll learned about the nation building experiment a month after the attack on Iraq was launched. 

Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639

Was that in April 2003? 

GINGRICH 050519: So, an Islamist party dedicated to a constitutional system of liberty, and willing to tolerate the rights of others, it strikes me would be a totally acceptable future, and one we would have no right to reject.  C-Span - APRIL 2003









						U.S. Foreign Policy and the Future of Iraq
					

The panelists discussed U.S. foreign policy. Topics included the meaning of war, the war on Iraq, world terrorism, and the role of the United Nations.    After their presentations the panelists answered audience members' questions.




					www.c-span.org


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2021)

Correll said:


> That was shit you made up.



Here are the exact words from the AUMF regarding what exactly the use of military force against Iraq is authorized.

*** 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. ***


Can you direct me to the relevant United Nations Security Council resolution that requires SH to get into compliance with  the GINGRICH/Krauthammer nation building experiment?


----------



## DELETED ACCOUNT (Aug 21, 2021)

I don't support any war we should be able to come to an agreement to keep the peace instead of killing each other


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2021)

The following is a fact. It is the truth about why W says he decided to invade Iraq in MARCH 2003. To be specific W told Americans that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors. DJT says that was a lie. 

This is not a lie: 

NFBW posted: “The premise of the war — the basis for going to the U.N., to the Congress and, indeed, to the nation — was Iraq’s possession of WMD in violation of the central condition for the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War.” POST#3285

Why does Correll call me a liar for saying  basically the very same thing about the unfound, non-existent wmd, that one of the giants in the 2003 neocon warmonger industry said after the invasion and the admission that the WMD was not found?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2021)

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766 

Correll wrote Jul 17,  2020: I was initially skeptical but the idea of creating a liberal democratic state in the middle of the Middle East as an Ideological Pushback against Radical Islam eventually convinced me. POST#186.

NFBW wrote: One of Correll ’s Giant warmongering advocates for nation building spent his pre-invasion time convincing the world that the immediate threat from Iraq was the nexus of WMD going from SH’s hands to terrorists that would use them to attack us. POST#3286

Correll wrote: Oh, I saw some live discussion on tv, with him, Krauthammer and some young female doctor. It was great to see Gingrich and Krauthammer together. POST#3272

NFBW wrote:  Gingrich said he was for the quick war and get out plan - with a small force?? Not sure how the nation building  was supposed to work with a small force with an expectation that major religious sects were supposed to create their own democracy and thank us and send us on our way. POST#3286

NFBW posted: In a paper written late in 2001 for the American Enterprise Institute, where he [Gingrich] is a senior fellow, he asserted, "We are a serious nation, and the message should be simple if this is to be a serious war: Saddam will stop his efforts and close down all programs to create weapons of mass destruction." POST#3286

NFBW posted:  Newt Gingrich's "outsider" act    POST#3286

NFBW posted:  On Oct. 31, 2002, he [Gingrich] wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Times opposing proposed U.N. inspections of Iraq's supposed WMD facilities; in it, he said, "President Bush and his administration have been abundantly clear why they believe Saddam must be replaced. They have convincingly argued that time is on the side of the Iraqi dictator, and that every day spent waiting is another day for him to expand his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction program."  POST#3286

NFBW posted:  In a piece for USA Today on Oct. 16, 2002, he [GingrIch] wrote, "The question is not, 'Should we replace Saddam?' The question is, 'Should we wait until Saddam gives biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to terrorists?' We should not wait until Saddam has the full capacity to create terror around the planet and is able to blackmail with nuclear weapons. Waiting is not an option."  POST#3286


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2021)

Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766 

GINGRICH:  "President Bush and his administration have been abundantly clear why they believe Saddam must be replaced. They have convincingly argued that time is on the side of the Iraqi dictator, and that every day spent waiting is another day for him to expand his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction program." Oct. 31, 2002, WASHINGTON TIMES.

Correll what is going on here? The only show I could find with Gingrich and Krauthammer on together was  C-Span - APRIL 2003

GINGRICH 050519: So, an Islamist party dedicated to a constitutional system of liberty, and willing to tolerate the rights of others, it strikes me would be a totally acceptable future, and one we would have no right to reject. 









						U.S. Foreign Policy and the Future of Iraq
					

The panelists discussed U.S. foreign policy. Topics included the meaning of war, the war on Iraq, world terrorism, and the role of the United Nations.    After their presentations the panelists answered audience members' questions.




					www.c-span.org
				





That’s five weeks after the start of the invasion.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 21, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2021)

Weatherman2020 what’s up? I was for the AUMF vote in October 2002. POST#3289. 

Cheney and Gingrich and Correll opposed going to the UN to avoid war. POST#3289.

HRC supported W’s decision to go through the UN as did Senator John Kerry. Great Americans  HRC and Kerry.
They are not warmongers. They tried to keep the peace. POST#3289.

NFBW posted:  Yes, Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. But he voted for that in order for Bush to go to the UN and get the inspectors back into Iraq, which Bush lyingly said was the only way to avoid a war. ……   It sounds counterintuitive that Bush would want an authorization to use force in order to avoid war. But Bush claimed that that's what this was all about. POST#3289.

NFBW posted:  Here's an exchange between Bush and a reporter from September 19, 2002, just before the vote in Congress: POST#3289.

NFBW posted:  `If the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will.'' POST#3289.


NFBW posted:  Bush Sends Congress a Proposed Resolution on Iraq (Published 2002)  POST#3289.

NFBW posted:  ``If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,'' POST#3289.

NFBW posted:  Reporter: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force? POST#3289.

NFBW posted:  Bush: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, "We support the administration's ability to keep the peace." That's what this is all about. POST#3289.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Weatherman2020 what’s up? I was for the AUMF vote in October 2002. POST#3289.
> 
> Cheney and Gingrich and Correll opposed going to the UN to avoid war. POST#3289.
> 
> ...


For all the lefties.


----------



## Correll (Aug 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> ONE DETERMINATION.
> 
> Correll reply to POST#3263:  You said that. My response stands. Get to something new. POST#3270.
> 
> ...



I have already addressed that repeatedly. YOu have not addressed my counter points. 


Are you playing stupid, or is this more of the circular debating?


----------



## Correll (Aug 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> … although the terms in 1441 do not include conducting the KRAUTHAMMER/GINGRICH nation building experiment.
> 
> .....



Did AMERICAN POLICY after the invasion include nation building as we have been discussing?


----------



## Correll (Aug 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Here are the exact words from the AUMF regarding what exactly the use of military force against Iraq is authorized.
> 
> ....



My comment was clearly in relation to your invention of "not knowing if it was before or after the invasion".


Were you being stupid or dishonest in dodging that point?


----------



## Correll (Aug 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The following is a fact. It is the truth about why W says he decided to invade Iraq in MARCH 2003. To be specific W told Americans that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors. DJT says that was a lie.
> 
> This is not a lie:
> 
> ...



Because this thread is (or has become) about the INTENT of those that supported the war, often as specifically as MYSELF, personally.


DJT can spout off about his personal opinion, and that is fine. I clearly disagree with him. 

YOU? You are trying to tell ME, what I thought at the time, and REJECTING, my responses because you don't agree with them.


You are a liar. And quite fucked in the head, personality disorder wise. 


I have told you all of this many times. Your ability to pretend to not know answers and keep repeating the question, without any concern for how stupid or dishonest you look,  indicates a very poor self image. 


You should change your behavior. Other people will treat you differently, in time. You will feel better about yourself.


----------



## Correll (Aug 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766
> 
> Correll wrote Jul 17,  2020: I was initially skeptical but the idea of creating a liberal democratic state in the middle of the Middle East as an Ideological Pushback against Radical Islam eventually convinced me. POST#186.
> 
> ...





Clearly Newt wanted the nation building, and used the fear of WMDs, to sell the policy.

Do you want to discuss this, or do you want to pretend to not understand it?


----------



## Correll (Aug 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639
> 
> Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766
> 
> ...




I don't know. Could be you could not find it. Could be, after nearly twenty years, I don't remember it as clearly as an autistic freak. 

Either way, doesn't really change anything.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2021)

POST#3292 





Correll said:


> Did AMERICAN POLICY after the invasion include nation building as we have been discussing?



NFBW wrote:  Of course it was  “after” the invasion.  You lied. You didn’t hear the Krauthammer Gingrich nation building argument until five weeks after the invasion started. POST#3297

NFBW wrote:  Before the invasion those two warmongers were hyping the WMD arguments for war that SH was gonna kill us all if we don’t take him out immediately.  POST#3297

NFBW wrote:  Here is the record on your “There was a national debate on nation building justifying war and that side won.” Your side of course. You are a liar. POST#3297

Correll wrote: 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  POST#703

NFBW asked:  Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq?  POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. POST#741

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case.
And they won. POST#741.


----------



## Correll (Aug 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> POST#3292
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Of course it was  “after” the invasion.  You lied. You didn’t hear the Krauthammer Gingrich nation building argument until five weeks after the invasion started.
> 
> ...




You didn't answer my question. Did American POLICY include nation building after the invasion?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> You didn't answer my question. Did American POLICY include nation building after the invasion?




You are a liar. I said “of course it was”.. 

NFBW wrote: Of course it was “after” the invasion. POST#3297

NFBW wrote: Are you stupid or trying to divert attention from your blatant lies. Post#3299

Meaning of of course in English - Cambridge Dictionary  “of course” meaning: 1. used to say yes…


----------



## Correll (Aug 21, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. I said “of course it was”..
> .....




So, did that come out of nowhere? Was it a surprise to  you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2021)

Correll said:


> Either way, doesn't really change anything.



There was only one pre-invasion justification for war. It was WMD not nation building. 

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW reply to #3278: You say the case for war for you was made on tv when KRAUTHAMMER and GINGRICH sold you on the brilliance of experimental nation building. POST#3279

You’ve been lying you this time. The case for war cannot be made five weeks after it was started.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2021)

NFBW wrote:  I’m still looking for Correll ‘s explanation for why he called me a liar. POST#3302

NFBW wrote:  The AUMF is explicit. W was authorized to use military force to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq. WMD resolutions are the only relevant ones. POST#3302

NFBW wrote:  There is no UNSC Resolution to conduct a Gingrich/Krauthammer Nation building experiment in Iraq. POST#3302

Correll wrote:  If you want to find and post the text of the authorization for discussion purposes, I will take a look at it, and we can discuss it. POST#1505

NFBW wrote:  I  did, but Correll avoids discussing it. POST#3302

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

Correll wrote:  He loves to wallow in the emotion of the loss of the war, but he just dismisses the human cost of Saddam being in power, or his wars. POST#1542

Correll wrote: If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case, then focusing solely on the hunt for the wmds, in the timing of the war, is misleading at best. POST#1548

NFBW wrote:  I really don’t see a coherent point in the above. If Correll can explain it I will respond. POST#3302

Correll wrote: You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments. POST#1554

NFBW wrote: Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s determination as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization. POST#1555

NFBW wrote: What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD POST#1555

Correll wrote: A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations. POST #1556 

NFBW wrote:  I’m not ignoring it. The AUMF was designed around the idea that it would force Iraq to let inspectors in and it worked. POST #1557

NFBW wrote:  The AUMF authorized W to make a determination in the future. POST #1557

NFBW wrote:  W revealed his determination that ONLY real WMD would justify war. No other reason rose to the level of necessity for war. And that makes sense. POST #1557


Correll wrote: His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization. POST#1558

NFBW wrote: The AUMF didn’t set a policy to start a war for any of those reasons listed. When it was voted on it did not authorize disarming IRAQ of his WMDs Unless W determined that it was necessary in the future. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: THAT is exactly the policy that W was discussing at the news conference on March 6. He was making his determination known to the world that he still preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully. POST #1559

NFBW wrote:  The UN Security Council and UN are referenced in the AUMF that gave W the opportunity to choose war if necessary. POST#2058

NFBW wrote:  W was given the authorization to solely determine the case for war in the AUMF that was passed in October 2002. POST#3256

The AUMF is worded exactly that way; 

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

NFBW wrote:   There is no ambiguity on this fact. POST#3256


NFBW wrote:  And then, Bush made the sole determination after March 6 to start a war in Iraq because he told us that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors. POST#3256

NFBW asked:  Why is it not true? POST#3225

Correll wrote:  Because there were other reasons. As repeatedly and constantly explained to you. POST #3228

NFBW wrote:  Not according to the AUMF and the determination that W made.  POST#3302


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2021)

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW wrote:  IF Correll seeks to call me a liar he owes it to the readers
 to explain precisely and define what I’m saying here is not true POST#3303: 



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The AUMF is explicit. W was authorized to use military force to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq. WMD resolutions are the only relevant ones. POST#3302



NFBW wrote and posts language from the actual AUMF as passed: Why POST#3302 is indisputably TRUE!!!!

Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

{{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
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 (*1 only WMD related  being relevant) Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council (*2 future reference to UNSC 1441 which W gets drafted and approved - giving SH a “Final opportunity” to comply)  to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant (see *1} Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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 (*3 “to be” denotes  “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war) 

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Aug 22, 2021)

I NEVER supported that war. When that American soldier on the central square in Baghdad climbed the giant statue of Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein and had his tank buddies pull it down, all my workmates — and 99% of Americans — were cheering.

I had that old “sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.” I knew we had lost already. I stopped believing in Santa Claus and “miracles” back in Vietnam War days.


----------



## Correll (Aug 22, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There was only one pre-invasion justification for war. It was WMD not nation building.
> 
> Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519
> 
> ...




Or, I made a mistake in remembering the order of events after nearly twenty years. Since, I'm not an autistic freak.


You know I looked at that link, for once, and I think that was the one, I was remembering. The woman looks very familiar.


Like I said, this doesn't change much, for me. My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned.


You though?  THis changes everything.


Your purpose here, has been to assign malignant motives to your enemies. 


As you have done since the beginning, calling me a "bloodthirst monster" for supporting the invasion and nation building.


But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.


Thus, we see that EVERYTIME, you decided that this or that, "proved" that I was a "bloodthirsty monster" or "didn't care about the innocent civilians" or some such bullshit, 


that you were wrong.  


I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. 


I await to see what bizarre excuse you come up with, to avoid learning ANYTHING from this series of mistakes and failures on your part.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> Your purpose here, has been to assign malignant motives to your enemies.



You are a liar. I’m here to record the truth about the ramp up to war in Iraq thanks to about the only truthful utterance DJT ever said. We were lied into the invasion of Iraq.

Your excuse for lying about the ramp up to war in Iraq being a lack of recall is not an excuse when we are trying to discuss knowable facts. If I don’t recall something I look it up, if you don’t want to be a liar you should do the same.

When you decide to discuss facts instead of motive and presentation let us know.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned.



There was no argument by anyone in the US Government that nation building was a consideration to justify war. My post 3303 Explains exactly why.

Your brain must be very clean. You have been washing it of truth facts and reality for twenty years about Iraq.


Ignorance is no excuse for being a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.



I was just about to tell you that it does not appear to me that you supported the invasion. I don’t think you opposed it either.

 Those that I have come across that truly supported the invasion continue the big lie as struth does, that the WMD was found. Some say it’s circling around in the ocean somewhere on secret ship. Or buried in a remote spot in the desert in Syria. But those warmonger liars stick  with the basic lying about WMD and most never gave a rats ass about nation building. The WMD was there and we found some. And they water down W’s full and alone responsibility for deciding to end inspections and start a war by repeating a less than half truth that Biden and HRC voted for war. 

They voted to get the UN involved and see if war could be avoided. 

W dirty double crossed the Dems.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2021)

Correll said:


> I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set.



Like most Americans I supported the nation building after the demonic moronic decision was made to use warfare to look for WMD instead of letting the inspectors finish it peacefully. 

Its a worse kind of warmonger that would support killing half a million IRAQIS to conduct a nation building experiment on them from the safety of you couch 6000 mikes away.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2021)

Correll wrote: I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. POST#3305

NFBW wrote: Therefore, the truth is, this point no longer stands. POST#3310

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. And they won. POST#741.

NFBW wrote: There was no national debate that included nation building as a justification for war, was there? POST#3310


----------



## Correll (Aug 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. I’m here to record the truth about the ramp up to war in Iraq thanks to about the only truthful utterance DJT ever said. We were lied into the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> Your excuse for lying about the ramp up to war in Iraq being a lack of recall is not an excuse when we are trying to discuss knowable facts. If I don’t recall something I look it up, if you don’t want to be a liar you should do the same.
> 
> When you decide to discuss facts instead of motive and presentation let us know.




Donald Trump having an opinion on the war is irrelevant to just about everything.

Your inability to understand why people who voted for Bush could years later voter for Trump despite the two of them not being in agreement on the Iraq War, is about you being an extraordinarily rigid and unimaginative thinker.


It has nothing to do with us. 


And your motive is OBVSIOUSLY to assign malignant motives to your enemies, as part of a your larger desire to spread hate and bigotry and division.


----------



## Correll (Aug 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There was no argument by anyone in the US Government that nation building was a consideration to justify war. My post 3303 Explains exactly why.
> 
> Your brain must be very clean. You have been washing it of truth facts and reality for twenty years about Iraq.
> 
> ...







Adding qualifiers to someone else's statement, and then attacking the new statement you have thus created, is a form of a lie and a the logical fallacy of STRAWMAN.


Those are not the actions of a good faith debater, nor the actions of someone interested in the Truth, OR, someone who is confident about their own position.


----------



## Correll (Aug 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I was just about to tell you that it does not appear to me that you supported the invasion. I don’t think you opposed it either.
> 
> Those that I have come across that truly supported the invasion continue the big lie as struth does, that the WMD was found. Some say it’s circling around in the ocean somewhere on secret ship. Or buried in a remote spot in the desert in Syria. But those warmonger liars stick  with the basic lying about WMD and most never gave a rats ass about nation building. The WMD was there and we found some. And they water down W’s full and alone responsibility for deciding to end inspections and start a war by repeating a less than half truth that Biden and HRC voted for war.
> 
> ...




One of my best friends believed that the wmds, were trucked away. He seemed sincere in that belief. Why to you call them liars? 


Your constant and consistent assumption that anyone that disagrees with you, when you consider the evidence to be clear, to be a "liar" ignores the fact that people can be very wrong despite any amount of evidence. 


Have you never noticed this before? 


It makes you look either completely dishonest, or completely ignorant.


----------



## Correll (Aug 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Like most Americans I supported the nation building after the demonic moronic decision was made to use warfare to look for WMD instead of letting the inspectors finish it peacefully.
> 
> Its a worse kind of warmonger that would support killing half a million IRAQIS to conduct a nation building experiment on them from the safety of you couch 6000 mikes away.




In all wars, (barring those that lead to immediate invasions of the country in question), the vast majority of the people that support the war, are not the ones going to fight it. 


What  you said there, boils down to nothing but your personal opinion that war is terrible and your desire to smear SOME people. 


I agree that war is terrible. I do not support your desire to smear SOME people. 


That is just you being a partisan hack, and working to spread bigotry, hate and division.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2021)

Correll wrote:  In all wars, (barring those that lead to immediate invasions of the country in question), the vast majority of the people that support the war, are not the ones going to fight it. POST#3314

NFBW wrote: I was not referring to supporting the invasion of IRAQ in March 2003 to disarm Iraq of the threat of WMD. I specifically wrote “ to conduct a nation building experiment”. Could you please re-read the following and reply on the specific language that was used regarding the nation building experiment that you mistakenly believed all this time was the case for war. POST#3315

NFBW wrote: Its a worse kind of warmonger that would support killing half a million IRAQIS to conduct a nation building experiment on them from the safety of you couch 6000 miles away. POST#3309


----------



## Correll (Aug 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  In all wars, (barring those that lead to immediate invasions of the country in question), the vast majority of the people that support the war, are not the ones going to fight it. POST#3314
> 
> NFBW wrote: I was not referring to supporting the invasion of IRAQ in March 2003 to disarm Iraq of the threat of WMD. I specifically wrote “ to conduct a nation building experiment”. Could you please re-read the following and reply on the specific language that was used regarding the nation building experiment that you mistakenly believed all this time was the case for war. POST#3315
> 
> NFBW wrote: Its a worse kind of warmonger that would support killing half a million IRAQIS to conduct a nation building experiment on them from the safety of you couch 6000 miles away. POST#3309




Part of the case for war. 


Your weird autistic belief that people make decisions based on simple or singular reasons, is very weird. 


I understand that being autistic that you don't FEEL how normal people feel, but you should be able to intellectually KNOW that you don't get it, and trust those of us who do. 


You can try to above post again, but without that important bit done right.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2021)

Correll Wrote: Your weird autistic belief that people make decisions based on simple or singular reasons, is very weird. POST#3316

NFBW wrote:  I am referring to your original support for nation building as the case for war, which was based on your incompetent and flawed memory of the sequence of events in 2002 and 2003. POST#3317

NFBW wrote: I have no such belief that people make decisions based on simple or singular reasons. Why are you lying about me again?  POST#3317


NFBW wrote in POST#3317: You put it in writing: 

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766 

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. POST#766 

Correll wrote Jul 17,  2020: I was initially skeptical but the idea of creating a liberal democratic state in the middle of the Middle East as an Ideological Pushback against Radical Islam eventually convinced me. POST#186

Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639


Correll Wrote: 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. POST#703


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2021)

Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. POST#3305

NFBW wrote. I want to be sure I understand you correctly. POST#3318

You are saying you did not support the invasion because the WMD argument was not convincing.

You are saying that you now realize that nation building was not an argument or justification for war.

Is that correct?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2021)

Correll wrote: My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned. POST#3305

NFBW wrote: Your position has changed drastically over the course of this thread. The reason it changed you have confessed. -  It was faulty memory on your part. POST#3319

NFBW wrote -  POST#3319 My position has not changed over the course of the thread.  This is it in a nutshell: 

NFBW wrote: There was no argument by anyone in the US Government that nation building was a consideration to justify war. My post 3303 Explains exactly why. POST#3307 

NFBW wrote:  I added nothing to any of Correll ‘s statements, but we get this nonsense in his recent Post#3312. 

Correll wrote: Adding qualifiers to someone else's statement, and then attacking the new statement you have thus created, is a form of a lie and a the logical fallacy of STRAWMAN. POST#3312

NFBW wrote: Here is the essence of the truth that  Correll Is continuing to avoid. POST#3319

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

{{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
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 (*1 only WMD related being relevant) Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council (*2 future reference to UNSC 1441 which W gets drafted and approved - giving SH a “Final opportunity” to comply) to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant (see *1} Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war) 

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303

Correll wrote: Because there were other reasons. As repeatedly and constantly explained to you. POST #3228

NFBW wrote: Not according to the AUMF and the determination that W made. POST#3302


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2021)

Correll can you explain why where or how ‘nation building Iraq’ was listed in the AUMF when there were no UNSC Resolutions, regarding nation building in Iraq.

NFBW POST#3320 Here is key language: 

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.}}} POST#3303


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll wrote: I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.? POST#983. 

NFBW wrote: Just wondering Correll - now that you found out that you actually did not support the invasion into Iraq in March 2003 to do nation building - and you said in POST#766 that you found the WMD argument at the time to be unconvincing, - was W wrong to wage war against Iraq because he decided war was the only way to enforce UNSC WMD resolutions with regard to Iraq? POST#3321


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

NFBW wrote:  I’m here to record the truth about the ramp up to war in Iraq thanks to about the only truthful utterance DJT ever said. We were lied into the invasion of Iraq. POST#3306

Correll  wrote:  Donald Trump having an opinion on the war is irrelevant to just about everything. POST#3311

NFBW wrote: Actually DJT is extremely relevant from Post One to this one.   POST#3322

The Banker: I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. POST #1

The Banker: I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war. POST #1

The Banker: Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure. POST #1

NFBW wrote: Tell me, Correll did you vote for an unpatriotic, traitor, BAGHDAD BOB, snd SH sympathizer when you voted for DJT knowing he, like me - calls the decision to invade Iraq a bad idea and huge disaster based on lies. When a former President adds weight to the cause of telling the truth about the ramp up to invading Iraq, that former president is highly relevant you see.. POST#3322


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll wrote: You are trying to tell ME, what I thought at the time, and REJECTING, my responses because you don't agree with them. POST#3294

NFBW wrote: I reject what you are saying at this time that is not true. POST#3323

NFBW wrote: I reject your lie that nation building was a case or justification for invading Iraq. That rejection of your lies is not based on hindsight. It is based on the language in the Iraq AUMF where it says W’s determination to start a war must be based on enforcing relevant UNSC Resolutions. Nation Building was not a UNSC RESOLUTION. POST#3323

NFBW wrote:  SAME WITH YOUR LIE THAT SH continued to provoke the US after 1441. That was an obvious and knowable fact at the time. POST#3323


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll Wrote: Your weird autistic belief that people make decisions based on simple or singular reasons, is very weird. POST#3316
> 
> NFBW wrote:  I am referring to your original support for nation building as the case for war, which was based on your incompetent and flawed memory of the sequence of events in 2002 and 2003. POST#3317
> 
> ...




EVERYTIME, you post dismissing all other arguments and insisting that WMDs, were the sole reason for war, that is the argument you are making. 


D'uh.


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. POST#3305
> 
> NFBW wrote. I want to be sure I understand you correctly. POST#3318
> 
> ...




Nothing I said in any way indicates that. Did you "see" me write anything like that? Normally I would not ask someone to go look for a quote on such a minor point..


But, your constant difficulty relating to normal people, normally, makes this relevant. 


And you seem to like digging though past posts looking for shit, so...


Please post an example of a something you think I wrote, that indicates the point you asked about above.


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned. POST#3305
> 
> NFBW wrote: Your position has changed drastically over the course of this thread. The reason it changed you have confessed. -  It was faulty memory on your part. POST#3319
> 
> ...





Do you remember recently, when you denied that you argue that people make decisions based on singular reasons?


I'm curious. Are you able to understand why I bring that up now? Or are you so autistic that you can't make the painfully obvious connection?


----------



## dblack (Aug 24, 2021)

The Banker said:


> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.


Ron Paul


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll can you explain why where or how ‘nation building Iraq’ was listed in the AUMF when there were no UNSC Resolutions, regarding nation building in Iraq.
> 
> NFBW POST#3320 Here is key language:
> 
> ...




As that was never my argument, I see no reason to defend it. 


I respectfully decline your offer of joining you in playing with your delusion. 


:Hint: Please to not pretend that this means I am dropping my ACTUAL argument regarding nation building. You have issues, but don't use those issues to justify bullshit tactics.


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.? POST#983.
> 
> NFBW wrote: Just wondering Correll - now that you found out that you actually did not support the invasion into Iraq in March 2003 to do nation building - and you said in POST#766 that you found the WMD argument at the time to be unconvincing, - was W wrong to wage war against Iraq because he decided war was the only way to enforce UNSC WMD resolutions with regard to Iraq? POST#3321




Too early to tell. Ask me again in 50 years, when we can see how the Iraq Nation Building experiment works out.


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote:  I’m here to record the truth about the ramp up to war in Iraq thanks to about the only truthful utterance DJT ever said. We were lied into the invasion of Iraq. POST#3306
> 
> Correll  wrote:  Donald Trump having an opinion on the war is irrelevant to just about everything. POST#3311
> 
> ...




When Trump shot his mouth off about the Iraq War, to me it came across as the off the cuff remarks of a man that never gave it any real thought.


So, I voted for him based on his pro-American trade and immigration positions. 


His opinion on a decision that was long past before he even got into politics was not relevant to me, or, imo, very many voters. 


IF Trump had made his opposition to the war, and more importantly his negative assumptions about the supporters of the war, central to his campaign, as you have done in this thread, 


THEN voting for him, would have been voting for an Anti-American Traitor, who's goal was to spread hate and division. 


You really, are being very odd, in making such a big deal about this "conflict" you see.




Between the Bush re-election and the Trump election, events and times had changed. People that supported an interventionist policy at ONE time, can choose to support a NON-interventionist candidate at another time. 


And it does not indicate any ill intent or really, much of anything. 


If you want to make so point about that supposed conflict, you need to start asking questions about why hte people who voted for intervention under Bush, later voted against it under Trump.


Have you made a bunch of self serving assumptions about that, that  you have not shared, but are using as a foundation for your attacks on people?



If so, share those assumptions now. Make your point. AND, ask some questions to support them you autistic jerk.


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: You are trying to tell ME, what I thought at the time, and REJECTING, my responses because you don't agree with them. POST#3294
> 
> NFBW wrote: I reject what you are saying at this time that is not true. POST#3323
> 
> ...




And again you are pushing the idea that people make decisions based on singular reasons. 

A point you just denied. 


Like I said, you are the one that is widely inconsistent.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

“I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.” POST#3305



Correll said:


> Did you "see" me write anything like that?



Correll wrote: I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766 

Correll wrote: I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. POST#3305

If one of the “debated” pro-war arguments  was unconvincing to you at the time, why would you support a war based on that argument? 

And another “debated” justification for war was not a pre-war argument according to you, and you said you just figured out that you did not support the war based on nation building, so again nation building us clearly out, and why would you support invading Iraq to disarm the dictatorship based in suspicion that WMD was being hidden from the inspectors that there disarming Iraq peacefully. 


Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. POST#3305


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> “I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.” POST#3305
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In your previous post, you asked me to if I was admitting that the nation building argument was NOT part of the debate for the war, before the invasion.



I replied correctly that I have said nothing like that.


Now you are moving the goal post to asking me...What the hell are you even asking me? 


No matter. I asked you to support your odd claim that I had made a comment that nation building was not part of the argument for war prior to the invasion.


DId you go looking and not find anything and decided to post the above word salad in an attempt to distract from that instead of admitting your fault?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> In your previous post, you asked me to if I was admitting that the nation building argument was NOT part of the debate for the war, before the invasion.




Here is exactly what I asked you to verify if my understanding was correct:

NFBW wrote. I want to be sure I understand you correctly. POST#3318

NFBW wrote.  You are saying you did not support the invasion because the WMD argument was not convincing. POST#3318

NFBW wrote.  You are saying that you now realize that nation building was not an argument or justification for war. POST#3318

NFBW wrote.  Is that correct? POST#3318


NFBW wrote: Please add the words “for you” to the nation building question. thank you. POST#3334

If you do not know how to do that let me help you.

NFBW asked: You are saying that you now realize that nation building was not an argument or justification for war for you? POST#3334

Is that correct now?


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Here is exactly what I asked you to verify if my understanding was correct:
> 
> NFBW wrote. I want to be sure I understand you correctly. POST#3318
> 
> ...




There are several points i want to make here.

1. My position remains the same. The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war. I was wrong about the date of the specific making of the argument that convinced me, but it remains the truth.

2. That you think that talking about your disagreement with my view, can CHANGE THE PAST, as shown by your question, is literally insane of you.


3. and I want to state again, we are discussing my past thoughts and positions. YOUR DISAGREEING WITH MY CONCLUSIONS IS IRRELEVANT.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

“The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war”. POST#3335

Correll ’s forked tongue!!!!!

“actually I did NOT support the invasion@ POST#3305 



Correll said:


> 1. My position remains the same. The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war.



NFBW wrote: I supported the war too based upon the mistake leading to the disaster already having been made. POST#3336

I’m asking you about pre-invasion support. 

 Will you make up your fucking mind?


You wrote that you did not support the invasion after all?

Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. POST#3305


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> “The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war”. POST#3335
> 
> Correll ’s forked tongue!!!!!
> 
> ...






YOu need to try to be clear.


Pre invasion I was skeptical of the WMD argument AND was not convinced by other arguments, UNTIL the case was made by NEwt and Charles together, which I know realize occurred later than I thought, ie after the invasion.


I have been consistent on this. We covered it. What more is there to say about that? Why are  you rehashing it?


Do you have a new point to make, or are you just talking in circles for some odd reason?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> I have been consistent on this.



Saying you realize you didn’t support the invasion and then later saying that you do support the invasion is not consistent.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll wrote:  Pre invasion I was skeptical of the WMD argument AND was not convinced by other arguments, UNTIL the case was made by NEwt and Charles together, which I know realize occurred later than I thought, ie after the invasion. POST#3337.

NFBW wrote: If pre-invasion you were in fact skeptical of the WMD argument AND were not convinced by other arguments then as I hear you explain it, you did not support the invasion - going in. POST#3339

NFBW wrote: That is what you are saying in POST#3337. 

NFBW wrote: To you, from what you are saying, prior to the invasion you saw no reason, made in the so-called national debate, to invade. POST#3337.


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Saying you realize you didn’t support the invasion and then later saying that you do support the invasion is not consistent.




What are you talking about? You are confusing yourself.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

“The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war”. POST#3335

Nation building was not an argument supportive of invasion. You said you did not support the invasion. You supported nation building and so did I. Nation building was the necessary result of the stupid decision to invade.

If there was no stupid decision to invade There would be no nation
building to support.

You are very confused.


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> “The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war”. POST#3335
> 
> Nation building was not an argument supportive of invasion. You said you did not support the invasion. You supported nation building and so did I. Nation building was the necessary result of the stupid decision to invade.
> 
> ...




I'm fine. YOu are the one jumping all over the place.


Nation building was part of the argument for support of the invasion. That I was not convinced until AFTER the invasion should not confuse you about that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> What are you talking about? You are confusing yourself.



What made you change your mind from not supporting the invasion to supporting the invasion? 

Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually …….   

I did NOT support the invasion,

……..  and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. POST#3305


Correll wrote: “The nation building argument was the argument that …….convinced me to support the invasion/war”. ………        POST#3335

But for you the nation building argument was five weeks after the start of the war
Which bad you realize now that you did nit support the invasion .


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Nation building was part of the argument for support of the invasion.




There is where you are lying.

The AUMF denies any possibility that your lie is true.

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW wrote: IF Correll seeks to call me a liar he owes it to the readers
to explain precisely and define what I’m saying here is not true POST#3303: 


NFBW wrote and posts language from the actual AUMF as passed: Why POST#3302 is indisputably TRUE!!!!

Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

{{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
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 (*1 only WMD related being relevant) Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council (*2 future reference to UNSC 1441 which W gets drafted and approved - giving SH a “Final opportunity” to comply) to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant (see *1} Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war) 

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What made you change your mind from not supporting the invasion to supporting the invasion?
> 
> Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually …….
> 
> ...




And what is your point?  Do you have a  point?


----------



## Correll (Aug 24, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is where you are lying.
> 
> The AUMF denies any possibility that your lie is true.
> 
> ...



The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion. 


It is a lie from you to claim otherwise.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion.



NFBW wrote POST#3347:  NOT according to the AUMF:

NFBW wrote:  Are you ever going to acknowledge that the AUMF exists. How do you get nation building as part of the reason, justification, basis for war if nation building is not a UNSC Resolution that W can enforce? POST#3347

NFBW wrote:  You have dodged the AUMF long enough. What can you argue about the language contained therein? POST#3347

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

{{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
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 (*1 only WMD related being relevant) Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council (*2 future reference to UNSC 1441 which W gets drafted and approved - giving SH a “Final opportunity” to comply) to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant (see *1} Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war) 

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion.



Is that based on your bad memory. I cite the AUMF. What do you base your pronouncement on?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2021)

Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639

NFBW wrote: Correll originally called nation building an “argument for war” that was presented in the ramp up to war in a national debate. POST#3349

Correll Wrote: 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. POST#703

NFBW asked:  Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq?  POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. POST#741

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue pand those who supported war, made their side's case.
And they won. POST#741

NFBW wrote:  There was no national debate wherein nation building was an argument for war or part of argument for war by supporters of war from DIck Cheney to Joe Lieberman. Correll has a bad memory on the ramp up to war. POST#3349

NFBW wrote:  When and in what constitutional or any other legal framework was the GingrichKrauthammer nation building case Presented to the American people and Congress of the United States of America by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq as a case for self defense against the continuing threat of Saddam Hussein being the dictator of Iraq? POST#758

Correll wrote:  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. Post#766

Correll Wrote: 1. We had a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Your denial is just you being obtuse. POST M#1188

Correll wrote: The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion. POST #3346


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll Wrote: 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. POST#703

NFBW asked: Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq? POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. POST#741



Correll said:


> The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion.



NFBW wrote:  No, a push back in the war of ideas was not an argument for war. POST#3350 

NFBW wrote: NO! The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was not part of the argument for authorized military action against Iraq or in support for an invasion for regime change. POST#3350 

NFBW wrote: THE AUMF was specific - the only argument was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions  with regard to Iraq’s UN required disarmament. POST#3350 

NFBW wrote in POST#3303:  Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

Why {{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW 

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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war) 

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion.




NFBW wrote: There is no mention in the following about enforcement of a UNSC RESOLUTION to do nation building in Iraq.  POST#3351


19 March 2003 

Text: U.S. Has Clear Authority to Use Force Against Iraq
(White House documents Iraq's rejection of U.S. diplomatic efforts)
(3980)
The United States has clear authority to use military force against
Iraq to assure its national security and compel Iraq to comply with
applicable UNSC resolutions, states a White House report released March 19. Released in connection with the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, the report summarizes the U.S.
diplomatic efforts over the past 12 years to protect against the
continued threat posed by Iraq's development of weapons of mass
destruction and obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security
Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
"Because of the intransigence and defiance of the Iraqi regime,
further continuation of these efforts will neither adequately protect
the national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant
UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq," states the report.
The report also explains that the use of force against Iraq is "fully
consistent" with efforts by the United States and other countries in
the international war on terrorism.
"In the circumstances described above, the President of the United
States has the authority -- indeed, given the dangers involved, the
duty -- to use force against Iraq to protect the security of the
American people and to compel compliance with UNSC resolutions," says
the report.
Following is the text of the March 19 report:
(begin text)
Report In Connection With Presidential Determination Under Public Law
107-243
This report summarizes diplomatic and other peaceful means pursued by
the United States, working for more than a dozen years with
cooperating foreign countries and international organizations such as
the United Nations, in an intensive effort (1) to protect the national
security of the United States, as well as the security of other
countries, against the continuing threat posed by Iraqi development
and use of weapons of mass destruction, and (2) to obtain Iraqi
compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
resolutions regarding Iraq. Because of the intransigence and defiance
of the Iraqi regime, further continuation of these efforts will
neither adequately protect the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to
enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.
This report also explains that a determination to use force against
Iraq is fully consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Indeed, as
Congress found when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), Iraq
continues to harbor and aid international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the safety of
United States citizens. The use of military force to remove the Iraqi
regime is therefore not only consistent with, but is a vital part of,
the international war on terrorism.
This document is summary in form rather than a comprehensive and
definitive rendition of actions taken and related factual data that
would constitute a complete historical record. This document should be
considered in light of the information that has been, and will be,
furnished to Congress, including the periodic reports consistent with
the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
(Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).
1. The Gulf War and Conditions of the Cease-Fire
On August 2, 1990, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq initiated the
brutal and unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The United
States and many foreign governments, working together and through the
UN, sought by diplomatic and other peaceful means to compel Iraq to
withdraw from Kuwait and to establish international peace and security
in the region.
President George H.W. Bush's letter transmitted to Congress on January
16, 1991, was accompanied by a report that catalogued the extensive
diplomatic, economic, and other peaceful means pursued by the United
States to achieve U.S. and UNSC objectives. It details adoption by the
UNSC of a dozen resolutions, from Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990,
demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, to Resolution 678 on
November 29, 1990, authorizing member states to use all necessary
means to "implement Resolution 660," to implement "all subsequent
relevant resolutions," and "to restore international peace and
security in the area."
Despite extraordinary and concerted efforts by the United States,
other countries, and international organizations through diplomacy,
multilateral economic sanctions, and other peaceful means to bring
about Iraqi compliance with UNSC resolutions, and even after the UN
and the United States explicitly informed Iraq that its failure to
comply with UNSC resolutions would result in the use of armed force to
eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein's regime remained
intransigent. The President ordered the U.S. armed forces, working in
a coalition with the armed forces of other cooperating countries, to
liberate Kuwait. The coalition forces promptly drove Iraqi forces out
of Kuwait, set Kuwait free, and moved into southern Iraq.
On April 3, 1991, the UNSC adopted Resolution 687, which established
conditions for a cease-fire to suspend hostilities. Among other
requirements, UNSCR 687 required Iraq to (1) destroy its chemical and
biological weapons and ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150
km; (2) not use, develop, construct, or acquire biological, chemical,
or nuclear weapons and their delivery systems; (3) submit to
international inspections to verify compliance; and (4) not commit or
support any act of international terrorism or allow others who commit
such acts to operate in Iraqi territory. On April 6, 1991, Iraq
communicated to the UNSC its acceptance of the conditions for the
cease-fire.
2. Iraq's Breach of the Cease-Fire Conditions: Threats to Peace and
Security
Since almost the moment it agreed to the conditions of the cease-fire,
Iraq has committed repeated and escalating breaches of those
conditions. Throughout the first seven years that Iraq accepted
inspections, it repeatedly obstructed access to sites designated by
the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On two occasions, in 1993 and 1998,
Iraq's refusal to comply with its international obligations under the
cease-fire led to military action by coalition forces. In 1998, under
threat of "severest consequences," Iraq signed a Memorandum of
Understanding pledging full cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA and
"immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" access for their
inspections. In a matter of months, however, the Iraqi regime
suspended cooperation, in part as an effort to condition compliance on
the lifting of oil sanctions; it ultimately ceased all cooperation,
causing the inspectors to leave the country.
On December 17, 1999, after a year with no inspections in Iraq, the
UNSC established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and
Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) as a successor to UNSCOM, to address
unresolved disarmament issues and verify Iraqi compliance with the
disarmament required by UNSCR 687 and related resolutions. Iraq
refused to allow inspectors to return for yet another three years.
3. Recent Diplomatic and Other Peaceful Means Rejected by Iraq
On September 12, 2002, the President addressed the United Nations
General Assembly on Iraq. He challenged the United Nations to act
decisively to deal with Iraq's systematic twelve-year defiance and to
compel Iraq's disarmament of the weapons of mass destruction and
delivery systems that continue to threaten international peace and
security. The White House background paper, "A Decade of Deception and
Defiance: Saddam Hussein's Defiance of the United Nations" (September
12, 2002), summarizes Iraq's actions as of the time the President
initiated intensified efforts to enforce all relevant UN Resolutions
and demonstrates the failure of diplomacy to affect Iraq's conduct:
For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the
will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among
other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the
Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and
crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing
to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing
individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti
property; and working to circumvent the UN's economic sanctions.
The President also summarized Iraq's response to a decade of
diplomatic efforts and its breach of the cease-fire conditions on
October 7, 2002, in an address in Cincinnati, Ohio:
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the
Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction,
to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for
terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those
obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological
weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and
support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The
entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance,
deception and bad faith.
In response to the President's challenge of September 12, 2002, and
after intensive negotiation and diplomacy, the UNSC unanimously
adopted UNSCR 1441 on November 8, 2002. The UNSC declared that Iraq
"has been and remains in material breach" of its disarmament
obligations, but chose to afford Iraq one "final opportunity" to
comply. The UNSC again placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm
and not on the inspectors to try to find what Iraq is concealing. The
UNSC made clear that any false statements or omissions in declarations
and any failure by Iraq to comply with UNSCR 1441 would constitute a
further material breach of Iraq's obligations. Rather than seizing
this final opportunity for a peaceful solution by giving full and
immediate cooperation, the Hussein regime responded with renewed
defiance and deception.
For example, while UNSCR 1441 required that Iraq provide a "currently
accurate, full and complete" declaration of all aspects of its weapons
of mass destruction ("WMD") and delivery programs, Iraq's Declaration
of December 7, 2002, failed to comply with that requirement. The
12,000-page document that Iraq provided was little more than a
restatement of old and discredited material. It was incomplete,
inaccurate, and composed mostly of recycled information that failed to
address any of the outstanding disarmament questions inspectors had
previously identified.
In addition, since the passage of UNSCR 1441, Iraq has failed to
cooperate fully with inspectors. It delayed until two-and-a-half
months after the resumption of inspections UNMOVIC's use of aerial
surveillance flights; failed to provide private access to officials
for interview by inspectors; intimidated witnesses with threats;
undertook massive efforts to deceive and defeat inspectors, including
cleanup and transshipment activities at nearly 30 sites; failed to
provide numerous documents requested by UNMOVIC; repeatedly provided
incomplete or outdated listings of its WMD personnel; and hid
documents in homes, including over 2000 pages of Iraqi documents
regarding past uranium enrichment programs. In a report dated March 6,
2003, UNMOVIC described over 600 instances in which Iraq had failed to
declare fully activities related to its chemical, biological, or
missile procurements.
Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, reported to the UNSC on
January 27, 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine
acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of
it." Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported
that Iraq's declaration of December 7 "did not provide any new
information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding
since 1998." Both demonstrated that there was no evidence that Iraq
had decided to comply with disarmament obligations. Diplomatic efforts
have not affected Iraq's conduct positively. Any temporary changes in
Iraq's approach that have occurred over the years have been in
response to the threat of use of force.
On February 5, 2003, the Secretary of State delivered a comprehensive
presentation to the UNSC using declassified information, including
human intelligence reports, communications intercepts and overhead
imagery, which demonstrated Iraq's ongoing efforts to pursue WMD
programs and conceal them from UN inspectors. The Secretary of State
updated that presentation one month later by detailing intelligence
reports on continuing efforts by Iraq to maintain and conceal
proscribed materials.
Despite the continued resistance by Iraq, the United States has
continued to use diplomatic and other peaceful means to achieve
complete and total disarmament that would adequately protect the
national security of the United States from the threat posed by Iraq
and which is required by all relevant UNSC resolutions. On March 7,
2003, the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain presented a draft
resolution that would have established for Iraq a March 17 deadline to
cooperate fully with disarmament demands. Since the adoption of UNSCR
1441 in November 2002, there have been numerous calls and meetings by
President Bush and the Secretary of State with other world leaders to
try to find a diplomatic or other peaceful way to disarm Iraq. On
March 13, 2003, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN asked for members of the
UNSC to consider seriously a British proposal to establish six
benchmarks that would be used to measure whether or not the regime in
Iraq is coming into full, immediate, and unconditional compliance with
the pertinent UN resolutions. On March 16, 2003, the President
traveled to the Azores to meet with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose
Manuel Durao Barroso, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish
Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to assess the situation and confirm
that diplomatic and other peaceful means have been attempted to
achieve Iraqi compliance with all relevant UNSC resolutions. Despite
these diplomatic and peaceful efforts, Iraq remains in breach of
relevant UNSC resolutions and a threat to the United States and other
countries. Further diplomatic efforts were suspended reluctantly
after, as the President observed on March 17, "some permanent members
of the Security Council ha[d] publicly announced they will veto any
resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq."
The lesson learned after twelve years of Iraqi defiance is that the
appearance of progress on process is meaningless - what is necessary
is immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation in the complete
disarmament of Iraq's prohibited weapons. As a result of its repeated
failure to cooperate with efforts aimed at actual disarmament, Iraq
has retained weapons of mass destruction that it agreed, as an
essential condition of the cease-fire in 1991, not to develop or
possess. The Secretary of State's February 5, 2003, presentation cited
examples, such as Iraq's biological weapons based on anthrax and
botulinum toxin, chemical weapons based on mustard and nerve agents,
proscribed missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver weapons of
mass destruction, and mobile biological weapons factories. The
Secretary of State also discussed with the Security Council Saddam
Hussein's efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
The dangers posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range
missiles are clear. Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons,
repeatedly. He used them against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He used
ballistic missiles against civilians during the Gulf War, firing Scud
missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. He used chemical weapons
against the Iraqi people in Northern Iraq. As Congress stated in 1998
in Public Law 105-235, "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction
programs threaten vital United States interests and international
peace and security." Congress concluded in Public Law 105-338 that
"t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime."
In addition, Congress stated in the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that:
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations by, among other things, continuing to
possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Nothing that has occurred in the past twelve years, the past twelve
months, the past twelve weeks, or the past twelve days provides any
basis for concluding that further diplomatic or other peaceful means
will adequately protect the national security of the United States
from the continuing threat posed by Iraq or are likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq and the
restoration of peace and security in the area.
As the President stated on March 17, "[t]he Iraqi regime has used
diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage." Further delay in
taking action against Iraq will only serve to give Saddam Hussein's
regime additional time to further develop WMD to use against the
United States, its citizens, and its allies. The United States and the
UN have long demanded immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation
by Iraq in the disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. There
is no reason to believe that Iraq will disarm, and cooperate with
inspections to verify such disarmament, if the U.S. and the UN employ
only diplomacy and other peaceful means.
4. Use of Force Against Iraq is Consistent with the War on Terror
In Public Law 107-243, Congress made a number of findings concerning
Iraq's support for international terrorism. Among other things,
Congress determined that:
-- Members of al Qaida, 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 continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens.
-- It is in the national security interests of the United States and
in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United
Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through
the use of force if necessary.
In addition, the Secretary of State's address to the UN on February 5,
2003 revealed a terrorist training area in northeastern Iraq with ties
to Iraqi intelligence and activities of al Qaida affiliates in
Baghdad. Public reports indicate that Iraq is currently harboring
senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a
close al Qaida associate. In addition, Iraq has provided training in
document forgery and explosives to al Qaida. Other terrorist groups
have been supported by Iraq over past years.
Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism, and continues to be a
safe haven, transit point, and operational node for groups and
individuals who direct violence against the United States and our
allies. These actions violate Iraq's obligations under the UNSCR 687
cease-fire not to commit or support any act of international terrorism
or allow others who commit such acts to operate in Iraqi territory.
Iraq has also failed to comply with its cease-fire obligations to
disarm and submit to international inspections to verify compliance.
In light of these Iraqi activities, the use of force by the United
States and other countries against the current Iraqi regime is fully
consistent with - indeed, it is an integral part of - the war against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Both because Iraq harbors terrorists and because Iraq could share
weapons of mass destruction with terrorists who seek them for use
against the United States, the use of force to bring Iraq into
compliance with its obligations under UNSC resolutions would be a
significant contribution to the war on terrorists of global reach. A
change in the current Iraqi regime would eliminate an important source
of support for international terrorist activities. It would likely
also assist efforts to disrupt terrorist networks and capture
terrorists around the globe. United States Government personnel
operating in Iraq may discover information through Iraqi government
documents and interviews with detained Iraqi officials that would
identify individuals currently in the United States and abroad who are
linked to terrorist organizations.
The use of force against Iraq will directly advance the war on terror,
and will be consistent with continuing efforts against international
terrorists residing and operating elsewhere in the world. The U.S.
armed forces remain engaged in key areas around the world in the
prosecution of the war on terrorism. The necessary preparations for
and conduct of military operations in Iraq have not diminished the
resolve, capability, or activities of the United States to pursue
international terrorists to protect our homeland. Nor will the use of
military force against Iraq distract civilian departments and agencies
of the United States Government from continuing aggressive efforts in
combating terrorism, or divert resources from the overall world-wide
counter-terrorism effort. Current counter-terrorism investigations and
activities will continue during any military conflict, and winning the
war on terrorism will remain the top priority for our Government.
Indeed, the United States has made significant progress on other
fronts in the war on terror even while Iraq and its threat to the
United States and other countries have been a focus of concern. Since
November 2002, when deployments of forces to the Gulf were
substantially increased, the United States, in cooperation with our
allies, has arrested or captured several terrorists and frustrated
several terrorist plots. For example, on March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by Pakistani
authorities, with U.S. cooperation. The capture of Sheikh Mohammed,
the al Qaida "mastermind" of the September 11th attacks and Usama Bin
Laden's senior terrorist attack planner, is a severe blow to al Qaida
that will destabilize the terrorist network worldwide. This and other
successes make clear that the United States Government remains focused
on the war on terror, and that use of force in Iraq is fully
consistent with continuing to take necessary actions against
terrorists and terrorist organizations.
5. Conclusion
In the circumstances described above, the President of the United
States has the authority - indeed, given the dangers involved, the
duty - to use force against Iraq to protect the security of the
American people and to compel compliance with UNSC resolutions.
The President has full authority to use the armed forces in Iraq under
the U.S. Constitution, including his authority as Commander in Chief
of the U.S. armed forces. This authority is supported by explicit
statutory authorizations contained in the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of
2002 (Public Law 107-243).
In addition, U.S. action is consistent with the UN Charter. The UNSC,
acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, provided that member
states, including the United States, have the right to use force in
Iraq to maintain or restore international peace and security. The
Council authorized the use of force in UNSCR 678 with respect to Iraq
in 1990. This resolution - on which the United States has relied
continuously and with the full knowledge of the UNSC to use force in
1993, 1996, and 1998 and to enforce the no-fly zones - remains in
effect today. In UNSCR 1441, the UNSC unanimously decided again that
Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under
relevant resolutions and would face serious consequences if it failed
immediately to disarm. And, of course, based on existing facts,
including the nature and type of the threat posed by Iraq, the United
States may always proceed in the exercise of its inherent right of
self defense, recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Accordingly, the United States has clear authority to use military
force against Iraq to assure its national security and to compel
Iraq's compliance with applicable UNSC resolutions.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)


www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030319-usia08.htm


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote POST#3347:  NOT according to the AUMF:
> 
> NFBW wrote:  Are you ever going to acknowledge that the AUMF exists. How do you get nation building as part of the reason, justification, basis for war if nation building is not a UNSC Resolution that W can enforce? POST#3347
> 
> ...




I have no problem dealing with the fact that there were multiple arguments and reasons for the invasion. 

You are the one  who can't deal with how people actually think.

We have covered all of this ground before. Do you have anything new to say? Why do you think discussing it again, will change anything?


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Is that based on your bad memory. I cite the AUMF. What do you base your pronouncement on?




Yes. I recall it being discussed.  Do you actually require me to find someone discussing it prior to the invasion? If I do that, will that impact your mind at all, or will you just stonewall?


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639
> 
> NFBW wrote: Correll originally called nation building an “argument for war” that was presented in the ramp up to war in a national debate. POST#3349
> 
> ...





So, what part of this do you not understand? Keep is concise. You get into trouble when you ramble. And no filler. That makes it harder to follow your chain of logic.


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll Wrote: 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. POST#703
> 
> NFBW asked: Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq? POST#722
> 
> ...




What are you doing?


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: There is no mention in the following about enforcement of a UNSC RESOLUTION to do nation building in Iraq.  POST#3351
> 
> 
> 19 March 2003
> ...




Excellent use of cut and paste. What are you doing?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> Excellent use of cut and paste. What are you doing?





Proving you are a liar when you say that nation building was one of many arguments for war by invading Iraq. Your deer in the headlights reply is further proof you are a liar. 

There is no UNSC resolution to do nation building in Iraq and out of a zillion words w sent to Congress as required by the AUMF as justification for war,  nation building is nowhere close to being mentioned. 

Its only mentioned on this thread as a lie from your head.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> What are you doing?



NFBW wrote: THE AUMF was specific - the only argument was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s UN required disarmament. POST#3350

Do you ‘remember’a different AUMF that includes nation building as a justification for invading Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes. I recall it being discussed.



NFBW wrote: Do you recall this being discussed? POST #3359

 “The greatest thing that would come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way would be $20 for a barrel of oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country.”  THE media tycoon that likely had a lot of influence on YOUR brain Correll posed that argument for invading Iraq and killing half a million Iraqis.

is that a legitimate case for war just because it was discussed and the bigger  question for you is it your argument that if anybody discussed what any people think about anything about any benefits to come from invading Iraq, are those discussions themselves raised to the level that would cause the US Congress to pass a law to authorize the President to act based on all those random discussions?


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Proving you are a liar when you say that nation building was one of many arguments for war by invading Iraq. Your deer in the headlights reply is further proof you are a liar.
> 
> There is no UNSC resolution to do nation building in Iraq and out of a zillion words w sent to Congress as required by the AUMF as justification for war,  nation building is nowhere close to being mentioned.
> 
> Its only mentioned on this thread as a lie from your head.




I never said that it was in the Authorization.  Would you like to address what I actually say?


I've admitted that WMDs, were a big part of the argument for the war. You showing that it was a big part of  the argument for war, is a complete waste of time. It means NOTHING.


What are you doing? Your actions make no sense.


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: THE AUMF was specific - the only argument was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s UN required disarmament. POST#3350
> 
> Do you ‘remember’a different AUMF that includes nation building as a justification for invading Iraq?




Authorization was the END of the debate on support for the war, not the whole of it. 


Your actions make no sense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> Authorization was the END of the debate on support for the war, not the whole of it.




You are a liar. I am not saying it was the whole of the debate. Nation building did not make the final cut. It was not a legitimate argument for war and invasion. ONLY WHAT was enforceable as a UNSC resolution made the final cut at the end of the debate. IF your argument for war was  nation building because you were not convinced that WMD mattered then you list the fucking debate in the end. That’s the fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> I never said that it was in the Authorization.



Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering. 

Just like the Rupert Murdoch argument for war that $20 a barrel oil would be the worlds greatest tax cut would not be considered a legitimate cause for starting a war Nation Building was never ever in contention to be a case, argument ir justification for war. 

It actual was a mandatory cost of war because we could not tear down an established government and leave unless we were actually greeted as liberators and the Iraqis had been fully prepared and ready to maintain set up their own government and civil order and govern themselves the day that SH and his regime fell.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> I've admitted that WMDs, were a big part of the argument for the war




WMD,s were the only part of the argument for war that was valid in March 2003 and validated because it was the only argument that was acted upon.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll said:


> Authorization was the END of the debate on support for the war, not the whole of it.



NFBW wrote: Actually the AUMF was a temporary loss for the Wolfowitz / Cheney / Rumsfeld / PNAC / Correll / white evangelical nationalist Christian / fuck the UN / rush to war / warmongering  / NIKE argument to JUST DO IT crowd in October 2092. POST#3365

NFBW wrote:  I supported a yes vote by DEMS for the AUMF but it was not at the time considered support for the war unless of course inspections and the disarming of Iraq was not sufficiently resumed. POST#3365

NFBW wrote:  Nation building was impossible to be part of the argument for after the AUMF was passed into law. POST#3365

NFBW wrote:  There was almost five months of debate on support if war after the AUMF passed. It was ONLY about disarming Iraq of WMD in order to remove the threat of IRAQ WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. POST#3365

NFBW wrote:  I doubt you have the mental capacity to recall the reality of what the AUMF did  to the overall Iraq debate from October through March. That’s why I am trying to clear it all up for you. POST#3365


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll wrote: What are you doing?POST#3356

NFBW wrote: There is no UNSC resolution to do nation building in Iraq and out of a zillion words W sent to Congress as required by the AUMF as justification for war, nation building is nowhere close to being mentioned. POST#3357

Correll wrote:  I never said that it was in the Authorization. POST#3369

NFBW wrote: Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering. Post#3363

NFBW wrote:  It is not an argument for war if no action is taken to make war based upon that argument. POST#3366


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

Correll wrote: I've admitted that WMDs, were a big part of the argument for the war. POST#3369

NFBW wrote: WHOOOOOPDEEDEEEDOOO!  Your lie is that nation building was an argument for war. War was started to enforce relevant WMD UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq

There was no war launched based on an argument to do nation building. POST#3367


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do you recall this being discussed? POST #3359
> 
> “The greatest thing that would come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way would be $20 for a barrel of oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country.”  THE media tycoon that likely had a lot of influence on YOUR brain Correll posed that argument for invading Iraq and killing half a million Iraqis.
> 
> is that a legitimate case for war just because it was discussed and the bigger  question for you is it your argument that if anybody discussed what any people think about anything about any benefits to come from invading Iraq, are those discussions themselves raised to the level that would cause the US Congress to pass a law to authorize the President to act based on all those random discussions?




Not, I'm obviously a serious thinker on these issues. For you to talk shit like I am "influenced" by  some media tycoon, is you being a jerk. 


Right up there were you pretend that people making arguments supporting the war, were consciously choosing to kill "a half a million iraqis", which is a lie on many levels. 


You are being a dishonest jerk.


is that the only way you can see to support yoru position?


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. I am not saying it was the whole of the debate. Nation building did not make the final cut. It was not a legitimate argument for war and invasion. ONLY WHAT was enforceable as a UNSC resolution made the final cut at the end of the debate. IF your argument for war was  nation building because you were not convinced that WMD mattered then you list the fucking debate in the end. That’s the fact.




"Making the final cut", your words, admits that there were other arguments that were part of the debate.


That is the point you have been denying, for reasons that are murky at best, and pure evil at worst.


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering.
> 
> .....



With all due respect Not, what you just claimed there, was retarded. 


I admitted no such thing.


----------



## Correll (Aug 25, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> WMD,s were the only part of the argument for war that was valid in March 2003 and validated because it was the only argument that was acted upon.




Now you are adding additional and very subjective qualifiers, a sure sign that you realized that your position was absurd.


But you lack the moral courage to admit it.


Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid.


And even more also, you are admitting that there were other arguments. Which conflicts with your previous positions.


Not that you have admitted that. 



Wally.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2021)

NFBW wrote: WMD,s were the only part of the argument for war that was valid in March 2003 and validated because it was the only argument that was acted upon. POST#3364

Correll wrote:  Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid. POST#3371

NFBW wrote: Even the WMD argument through March 6 2003, according to W, was not a valid argument for war. THINK about it Correll. W was willing to leave SH in power had W allowed Iraq to be disarmed peacefully. W never entertained one public thought to start a war to convert IRAQ into a functioning  liberal democracy. POST#3372

NFBW wrote:  How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2021)

Correll wrote:  Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid. POST#3371

NFBW wrote;  Is this Correll in your opinion - an argument in general for starting a war? POST#3373

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” POST#3373

NFBW wrote; If you do indeed think it is an argument for war Correll do you think it is a valid argument for war and was properly and currently used to make a case for invading Iraq. POST#3373

NFBW wrote; When I say ‘valid’ let’s go by how American mothers and fathers of US military personnel think when their young sons and daughters are being asked to put their lives and limbs on the line to protect and defend  their country, POST#3373


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2021)

Correll wrote:  I never said that it was in the Authorization. POST#3369

NFBW wrote: Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering. Post#3363

Correll write:  With all due respect Not, what you just claimed there, was retarded.  POST#3370

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll think Congress is not relevant when it weighed all or some of the arguments for or against starting a war by invasion into Iraq in March 2003?  POST#3374


----------



## Correll (Aug 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: WMD,s were the only part of the argument for war that was valid in March 2003 and validated because it was the only argument that was acted upon. POST#3364
> 
> Correll wrote:  Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid. POST#3371
> 
> ...



Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat. 

That is a very valid reason for war.


Your pretense that validity is defined by the actions of a group, is not reasonable. It is the logical fallacy of proof by popularity. 


The Nazis had a lot of reasons for a lot of wars. THey were willing to act on them. Does that mean that those reasons were valid? That is the implication of your argument.


Which I'm sure is not what you intended. 


See what I did there? I saw an implication of your words. Instead of assuming the worst possible interpretation so that I could attack you on it, I assumed the most reasonable interpretation. 


That's me being the reasonable one here, instead of the jerk.


----------



## Correll (Aug 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid. POST#3371
> 
> NFBW wrote;  Is this Correll in your opinion - an argument in general for starting a war? POST#3373
> 
> ...




No. I disagree with that comment and the world view that it has as a premise.


That being said, considering our status and power, more nations should be more respectful to US. 

The way that bad mouthing US, is considered a fun sport and completely safe, is possibly a sign that we have been too lenient on too many people.


----------



## Correll (Aug 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  I never said that it was in the Authorization. POST#3369
> 
> NFBW wrote: Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering. Post#3363
> 
> ...




Constitutionally Congress is supposed to be the branch that declares war. For reasons I do not completely understand, they have mostly abdicated that role. 

I disagree with that abdication, but I recognize that it is an historical fact. 


NOte how, I don't use my disagreement as a...."reason" to pretend that it did not happen. 


That is me being a sane person. Instead of engaging in magical thinking.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2021)

Correll wrote:  And even more also, you are admitting that there were other arguments. Which conflicts with your previous positions. POST#3371

NFBW wrote:  You are a liar. I have often expressed here my support for the ad hoc switch to the humanitarian argument for the Iraq military occupation after the actual causus belli that SH in possession of WMD posed an urgent and unique threat to the national security of the United States and to the security and the peace in the region and to the entire world. The failure to find SH in possession of WMD meant the argument made to justify the invasion was no longer valid. A new case for half decade of military occupation was developed on the fly and it was incompetence in action but I supported the argument that we were forced morally and financially to do nation building in Iraq because we broke it. POST#3378

NFBW wrote: I did not support the argument to do nation building ny military force as a reason to start the war prior to MARCH 2003 because as an American it was never asked by our government of me or members of Congress to consider it. POST#3378

NFBW wrote: But i was aware that private citizens known at the time calling themselves neocons were pushing the nation-building argument as a reason to start a war in Iraq and beyond in other countries after their expected success in IRAQ. POST#3378

NFBW wrote: So you are a liar. I was fully aware of every single argument for starting a war in Iraq at the time specifically the neoconservative argument that an intent to do nation building when the Iraqis don’t have a say in the debate and some of them will die is morally unfit to be considered. And so IRAQ was invaded for the threat of SH in possession of WMD not for humanitarian reasons at all. Quit lying about me. POST#3378


----------



## Correll (Aug 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  And even more also, you are admitting that there were other arguments. Which conflicts with your previous positions. POST#3371
> 
> NFBW wrote:  You are a liar. I have often expressed here my support for the ad hoc switch to the humanitarian argument for the Iraq military occupation after the actual causus belli that SH in possession of WMD posed an urgent and unique threat to the national security of the United States and to the security and the peace in the region and to the entire world. The failure to find SH in possession of WMD meant the argument made to justify the invasion was no longer valid. A new case for half decade of military occupation was developed on the fly and it was incompetence in action but I supported the argument that we were forced morally and financially to do nation building in Iraq because we broke it. POST#3378
> 
> ...




That was a big pile of nonsense.


My point stands. You have admitted to there being other arguments made, but keep circling around to also denying that there were any other arguments made. 


You are Wally.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> Constitutionally Congress is supposed to be the branch that declares war. For reasons I do not completely understand, they have mostly abdicated that role.
> 
> I disagree with that abdication, but I recognize that it is an historical fact.



I didn’t ask for your opinion on that. I asked for your answer to this;

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll think Congress is not relevant when it weighed all or some of the arguments for or against starting a war by invasion into Iraq in March 2003? POST#3374


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> That was a big pile of nonsense.




Why? You lied about me and calling it nonsense does not undo the fact that you are a liar.


----------



## Correll (Aug 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I didn’t ask for your opinion on that. I asked for your answer to this;
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do you Correll think Congress is not relevant when it weighed all or some of the arguments for or against starting a war by invasion into Iraq in March 2003? POST#3374




My answer was clear. They have some input but not nearly as much as they should, imo.


----------



## Correll (Aug 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why? You lied about me and calling it nonsense does not undo the fact that you are a liar.




The part you cut, where I explained my response, was kind of relevant. 

That was kind of a dick move on your part.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> The part you cut, where I explained my response, was kind of relevant.



Your explanation was a bigger lie than the original..



Correll said:


> My point stands. You have admitted to there being other arguments made, but keep circling around to also denying that there were any other arguments made.
> 
> 
> You are Wally.




I have never denied there were other arguments made. I reject that any other arguments than the one used in the AUMF have validity in building the actual historic case for war in 2003.


----------



## Correll (Aug 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your explanation was a bigger lie than the original..
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You constantly claim that wmd was the only argument. For you to deny that now, is the height of either dishonesty or delusion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> You constantly claim that wmd was the only argument.




You are a lIar. 

NFBW wrote:       Here is one of my posts containing the word “only”.. POST#3386



NFBW wrote: You cannot “know” that the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMD because the only one person who is responsible for that case specific decision .... tells you clearly that the opposite is true. POST#1551

He tells you right here: 

“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. POST#1551

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.” POST#1551

If Bush had made the case on March 6 2003 that any other case for war brought about the necessity of war this statement in reality would make no sense whatsoever. The decision could have been made when Bush was still a drunkard. POST#1551

But on March 6 Bush explains exactly the only ONE reason that he would decide to start a war - that was WMD being hidden from those 1441 inspectors POST#1551


NFBW wrote:  I acknowledged other cases for war in that post when I wrote: “If Bush had made the case on March 6 2003 that any other case for war brought about the necessity of war” So you are in fact a liar. POST#3386


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 27, 2021)

ONLY 


IF I say I was the ONLY American living in Timbuktu I’m not saying Iban the only American living in the world.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Biden talked about a ground invasion of Iraq ONLY ONLY ONLY Only WITH UN SECURITY COUNCIL Approval






NotfooledbyW said:


> It was the sole and only basis for invading Iraq as presented by W and authorized by Congress.
> 
> Its why they searched for a year to find them because they knew it was the only true justification to start killing Iraqis and getting more Americans killed than died on September 11 2001.
> 
> ...















NotfooledbyW said:


> My point was the only true point to be made about the ‘other’ or your ‘personal’ justification for getting half a million Iraqis killed is that it is not a disagreement. Your personal justification for the war is not valid. The nation building argument for war was not an argument to justify starting a war in the middle of ongoing peaceful inspections.
> 
> The invasion was based on separating a high risk dictatorship from its possession of WMD and ONLY that.
> 
> There was no other argument for war. Nation Building was an obligation that had to be met by the invading army only because regime change was falsely determined by W as the ONLY way to disarm IRAQ of suspected lethal WMD stockpiles ongoing production capability.









NotfooledbyW said:


> You are on record here that the multi-reason case for war was made on the date
> that the AUMF was passed in September 2002.
> 
> How do you explain US Iraq War/Peace policy a month later when W had a draft written for submission to the UNSC and got it passed unanimously. UNSC RES 1441 says right in it that SH has been granted a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with his WMD disarmament obligations.
> ...











NotfooledbyW said:


> I am not saying the debate about the “dish running away with the spoon” did not happen. Its still where it always was.
> 
> In the context of the full paragraphs above what do you think I am telling you in this?
> 
> ...









NotfooledbyW said:


> You have no recovery from hitting you with this fact.
> 
> NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187
> 
> On the positives side “SH can only succeed in avoiding war if he cooperates on the one and ONLY ONE reason why W sent the Inspectors there. To verify the declaration by Iraq that it was disarmed.









NotfooledbyW said:


> *** America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? *** W
> 
> Correll wrote: That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it. POST#1598
> 
> ...









NotfooledbyW said:


> ONE DETERMINATION.
> 
> Correll reply to POST#3263:  You said that. My response stands. Get to something new. POST#3270.
> 
> ...









NotfooledbyW said:


> Proving you are a liar when you say that nation building was one of many arguments for war by invading Iraq. Your deer in the headlights reply is further proof you are a liar.
> 
> There is no UNSC resolution to do nation building in Iraq and out of a zillion words w sent to Congress as required by the AUMF as justification for war, nation building is nowhere close to being mentioned.
> 
> Its only mentioned on this thread as a lie from your head.









NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: THE AUMF was specific - the only argument was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s UN required disarmament. POST#3350
> 
> Do you ‘remember’a different AUMF that includes nation building as a justification for invading Iraq?









NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: WMD,s were the only part of the argument for war that was valid in March 2003 and validated because it was the only argument that was acted upon. POST#3364
> 
> @Correll wrote: Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid. POST#3371
> 
> ...









Correll said:


> You constantly claim that wmd was the only argument


----------



## Correll (Aug 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a lIar.
> 
> NFBW wrote:       Here is one of my posts containing the word “only”.. POST#3386
> 
> ...




Dude. You say it all the time. DROP THE SHIT.


----------



## Correll (Aug 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> ONLY
> 
> 
> IF I say I was the ONLY American living in Timbuktu I’m not saying Iban the only American living in the world.




I stopped reading here. Your denial is stupid. You say it all the time. It is has been your major point. 


This is what your whole life it about.


1. WMDs were the stated reason for the war.

2. No wmds.

3. Thus those that supported the war are liars and "bloodthristy monsters". " And did I mention they are white and Christian, and Nationalists too?"



It is a moronic chain of logic, but it is the central core of your entire identity. 


Which is very sad.



I have of course, utterly crushed that "logic" so often that even you know it. Now you are just stonewalling. And dancing around a lot. Playing various silly games.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> 1. WMDs were the stated reason for the war.



You lied saying I have constantly ppstef there was only one “argument” for war.
You are a liar. And yes WMDs were the stated reason for the war - to do nation building or not is a post-war argument. It was not an argument used to justify war. You are lyinf about that too.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> . You say it all the time. DROP THE SHIT.



Show the post or quit lying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> This is what your whole life it about.
> 
> 
> 1. WMDs were the stated reason for the war.
> ...



Nope! You supported the war to do nation building. The WMD argument was not convincing at the time you said. You are a blood thirsty warmonger for that main reason plus you say fuck the UN, there was no way Iraq could have been disarmed peacefully. You did not support a policy of exhausting all peaceful means before jumping into war - the war killed half a million Iraqis - for nation building??   You are a bloodthirsty warmonger in the Cheney Wolfowitz Rumsfeld fuck the UN camp.

Its not the Republican base’s fault that W lied to them about Iraq’s WMD threat - so they are not necessarily “liars and "bloodthristy monsters” - But like you when they start lying about what occurred during the ramp up to war - then it is very appropriate to call them what they are - blood thirsty warmongers.


----------



## Correll (Aug 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You lied saying I have constantly ppstef there was only one “argument” for war.
> You are a liar. And yes WMDs were the stated reason for the war - to do nation building or not is a post-war argument. It was not an argument used to justify war. You are lyinf about that too.




You deny that you claim there was only one reason for the war, then you state that that one reason was the reason and dismiss the other one that we have discussed. 


You sort of might be implying even other reasons, but that type of general vague point is completely at odds with your more general style of autistic obsessive detail. 


If you have something to say, fucking say it. Because all I have heard  you say for months is "WMDS were teh sole argument for war".  


Well that, and "WHITE MAN BAD".


----------



## Correll (Aug 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Show the post or quit lying.




You seem to enjoy obsessively going over past posts to dig up, supposed "gotchas". 

I don't.  I cant' be bothered. I will instead airily dismiss your pretense that he have not said it, and move on.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> You deny that you claim there was only one reason for the war,



NFBW wrote:  I deny it because I never claimed it. You are a liar because you cannot go back and find a post where I wrote it. Your arguments, your warmongering propaganda, your alternate reality regarding the ramp up to war all fail to be coherent, factual or truthful when weighed against the facts and words and actions used by the President, politicians and authorities on all sides back then - so you lie about what I’m saying as your only recourse for attempting to engage in an honest discussion about Iraq. POST#3395

NFBW wrote:  SHORT ANSWER - you are a liar because you have to be. POST#3395

NFBW wrote:  You have clearly stated that your pre-war support for the killing of half a million Iraqis was to do nation building (The WMD Argument for war was not convincing to you ) after it was part of a national debate prior to the start of Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE. Thus you have created the fake reality that nation building was one of the reasons that W and CONGRESS made it NECESSARY and justifiable  to invade and occupy Iraq. POST#3395

NFBW wrote:  The pre-war “nation building” argument “for war” was most publicly made on the basis of the neocon Ledeen Rule by a fellow neocon warmonger named Jonah Goldberg. Neither were elected officials in any capacity prior to the invasion to disarm Iraq in MARCH 19 2003 nor were they afterwards. POST#3395

NFBW wrote:  The LEDEEN rule used to justify nation building in Muslim countries according to Jonah Goldberg on April 23 2002. POST#3395

“”” WHY IRAQ?

So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I’ve long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the “Ledeen Doctrine.” I’m not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, 









						Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two | National Review
					

For part one, click here.  During the Cold War, few people said, “We have to solve the problem of Latvia, before we can even begin to address the problem of the Soviet Union.” Latvia’s problem — as…




					www.nationalreview.com
				




but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” “”” cited in POST#3395


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 28, 2021)

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war.  POST#3375

NFBW wrote: It was not a valid reason for starting  a war in Iraq in March 2003. POST#3396

NFBW wrote: Again you did not answer the question you were asked. POST#3396

NFBW asks second time: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372 POST#3396


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 28, 2021)

NFBW wrote:  You lied saying I have constantly posted there was only one “argument” for war. POST#3390

NFBW wrote:  And yes WMDs were the stated reason for the war - to do nation building or not is a post-war argument. It was not an argument used to justify war. You are lying about that too. POST#3390

Correll wrote: You deny that you claim there was only one reason for the war, then you state that that one reason was the reason and dismiss the other one that we have discussed.  POST#3393

NFBW wrote:  I am telling you a fact. WMDs were the stated reason for the war. That is a fact verifiable in the written language in the AUMF passed in March 2003. POST#3397

NFBW wrote:   The AUMF limited the potential “if necessary” use of military force in Iraq to the enforcement of relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding WMD. POST#3397

NFBW wrote:  The entire world from second grade on up probably understands that it is not me dismissing “nation building” as a justification for war in Iraq within the wording of the binding AUMF. POST#3397

NFBW wrote: It was the US CONGRESS that dismissed the Ledeen/Goldberg neocon nation building argument that was floated step under in early 2002 as a justification for war in Iraq. It was not me. POST#3397


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 28, 2021)

NFBW wrote; Is this Correll in your opinion - an argument in general for starting a war? POST#3373

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” POST#3373  (Ledeen Jonah Goldberg Machiavelli)

Correll wrote: No. I disagree with that comment and the world view that it has as a premise.  POST#3377

NFBW wrote: Why do you disagree? POST#3398 

NFBW wrote: It was Jonah Greenberg’s April 2002 dissertation on the neocon argument for starting a war in the crappy little country Iraq to begin the strategic projects of nation building in the strategic Guif Region. POST#3398 

NFBW wrote:  Here is an excerpt from GOLDBERG’s Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two By JONAH GOLDBERG
April 23, 2002 / NATIONAL REVIEW  POST#3398 

“”” The most compelling substantive reason, from my point of view, is that Iraq should be a democratic, republican country, with individual rights secured by a liberal constitution.









						Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two | National Review
					

For part one, click here.  During the Cold War, few people said, “We have to solve the problem of Latvia, before we can even begin to address the problem of the Soviet Union.” Latvia’s problem — as…




					www.nationalreview.com
				




 (My preferred governmental model is something along the lines of the Swiss confederation, with Kurds, Shiites, and Arab-Sunnis each having considerable internal autonomy but a shared national government. The country is already split in three parts by the U.S.- and British-imposed no-fly zones anyway. “”” POST#3398


----------



## basquebromance (Aug 28, 2021)

Saddam Hussein was brutal to his own people for decades, Saddam Hussein threatened America and almost killed Bush's daddy, Saddam Hussein's actions justify America going to war, Saddam Hussein's barbarism is why i support the involvement in a war by America


----------



## Correll (Aug 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: I deny it because I never claimed it. You are a liar because you cannot go back and find a post where I wrote it. Your arguments, your warmongering propaganda, your alternate reality regarding the ramp up to war all fail to be coherent, factual or truthful when weighed against the facts and words and actions used by the President, politicians and authorities on all sides back then - so you lie about what I’m saying as your only recourse for attempting to engage in an honest discussion about Iraq. POST#3395
> 
> NFBW wrote: SHORT ANSWER - you are a liar because you have to be. POST#3395
> 
> NFBW wrote: You have clearly stated that your pre-war support for the killing of half a million Iraqis




I stopped reading here. All you are doing it being a spam bot, spamming anti-American propaganda and divisive hate now.


You got a point to make or you just going to keep spamming?


----------



## Correll (Aug 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372
> 
> Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
> That is a very valid reason for war.  POST#3375
> ...




I addressed that. Be less dishonest.


----------



## Correll (Aug 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote; Is this Correll in your opinion - an argument in general for starting a war? POST#3373
> 
> “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” POST#3373  (Ledeen Jonah Goldberg Machiavelli)
> 
> ...



You made no point. Why did you post this? Why did you ask about it? WTF are you on about?


----------



## basquebromance (Aug 28, 2021)

i concede that Saddam pretended to have WMD's in order to bluff in front of the Iranians that he is a powerful leader not to be messed with


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 29, 2021)

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war.  POST#3375

Correll wrote: I addressed that. POST#3401

NFBW wrote: Again you did not answer the question you were asked. POST#3396

NFBW asks a third time: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POSTS #3372 POST#3396 POST#4402 

NFBW wrote: Perhaps this will bring Correll to finally answer the POST#3372 question. POST#4402

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. And they won. POST#741

NFBW wrote: In Correll ‘s fake reality regarding the ramp up to the ultimate decision in March 2003 by W to invade invade iIraq, it begins with the outright disinformation operation that there was a national debate in 2002 on whether to take down the dictatorship in Iraq by military force in order to do ‘nation building’ in a Muslim Nation which would ultimately lead to peace and security to the world by diminishing Muslim antagonistic behavior toward the Western style democracies. POST#4402

The problem for Correll is that no such debate on Iraq took place so the supporters of “nation building” war in Iraq did not push that reason for war beyond talking about. And that talk I believe never went beyond the being a neocon wet dream for invading Iraq. POST#4402

NFBW wrote:  There was no such debate so Correll cannot answer this question or attempt to address it. POST#4402

NFBW wrote: “How can nation building be a valid argument for war in Iraq l if the US Government never said ever considered starting a war to do it for that reason? POST#4402


----------



## Correll (Aug 29, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> @Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
> That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375
> 
> @Correll wrote: I addressed that. POST#3401
> ...




I stopped reading here. You are really doubling down on the dishonest spam botting. 


My answer is right in there. You are being very rude in lying to my face like this.


----------



## Correll (Aug 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372




I stopped reading here. This was answered. You want to move the discussion forward, reply to my answer, don't repost this shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> I stopped reading here. This was answered.



You answer never addressed how you think nation building can be a valid argument for war when it is a fact that nobody in the US government would ever consider starting a war by invading Iraq to do it?

Nation building is an argunent for what to potentially do after winning or ending a war or deposing a government. NB is not an argument or case for starting a war. 

When you can accept that reality let me know.


----------



## Correll (Aug 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You answer never addressed how you think nation building can be a valid argument for war when it is a fact that nobody in the US government would ever consider starting a war by invading Iraq to do it?
> .....




Stopped reading here. This was answered. 

Why are you being such a troll? 

You want to continue this discussion, move it forward. Spamming the same already addressed point, over and over again, is something that bots do. Literally. 


Are you a brainless bot, or are you a real person?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Stopped reading here. This was answered.



It is plain to see that when you refuse to answer a specific question by pissing and moaning all over the place it must be a question that undermines your propaganda and disinformation campaign in defense of warmongering the disaster that the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was. The decision that caused at least half a million Iraqis to die in case you forgot.


----------



## JoeMoma (Aug 30, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> War in Iraq was going to happen after George W. Bush was selected by the USSC, so it was not surprising...
> 
> Any Republican that is as old as me or older claims they didn’t support the invasion are lying and knowingly lying.
> 
> ...


I don't think it would of happened without 9/11.  After 9/11 The USA was looking for a fight.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 30, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> I don't think it would of happened without 9/11. After 9/11 The USA was looking for a fight.


 

Yes. 9/11 gave the Neocons a foundation to do what they were hankering to do for over a decade. As there was mass appeal to the white evangelical Christian nationalistic Republican base to hit Muslims hard anywhere after 9/11 as if Afghanistan was not enough for some odd reason.


----------



## Correll (Aug 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is plain to see that when you refuse to answer a specific question by pissing and moaning all over the place it must be a question that undermines your propaganda and disinformation campaign in defense of warmongering the disaster that the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was. The decision that caused at least half a million Iraqis to die in case you forgot.




Not only did I answer the point about "was it a valid reason", but,


everytime you say, "half a million iraqis" you are being a dishonest anti-American troll. 


Is this  your way of saying you want to end the debate?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 30, 2021)

Correll wrote:  This was answered. POST#3408

NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414

NFBW wrote: Where exactly dId you provide an answer to “nobody will start a war to do nation building” in your POST#3375 non-answer to the question? POST#3414

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war.  POST#3375

NFBW POST#3414 Here is the original full question:

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

NFBW wrote:  Your answer that “it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat” does not make it an argument for war if nobody accepts it as a valid argument for war. POST#3414

NFBW wrote:  Some arguments were made to just hit a crappy Muslim country every ten years to show America can put a boot up any one’s ass when we feel like it. Thats not a valid argument for war because no AMERICAN policy maker would endorse that. POST#3414

NFBW wrote:  That goes with the racist notion that Muslims only respect power. So the answer you went with that nation building “could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat” would apply to a boot up the ass of a crappy Muslim country every ten years would provide security in the same way.. POST#3414

NFBW wrote:  But it will never happen because it is not a valid excuse to start a war just like nation building was not an excuse to invade Iraq. POST#3414


----------



## Correll (Aug 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  This was answered. POST#3408
> 
> NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414
> ....




Yes, it did. I made a clear response making a point, and even gave an additional counter point, backed by an historical example.

I'm not going to let you talk shit about this. If you want to advance the discussion, drop this revision shit and make your new point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Yes, it did.



NFBW wrote: You are a liar.  Your answer is on the record. POST#3415

NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414

NFBW POST#3415 wrote:  Proof you are a liar: 

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375

NFBW asks a third time: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372 POST#3396 POST#3415

NFBW wrote: Your answer was that nation building was a valid argument for war but you cannot explain how that can be so since no government officials or politicians chose to use it as an argument for war. Nation building is an argument for what could be done after a war. POST#3415

NFBW wrote: There had to be an argument settled upon to make war. And in the case of Iraq the COMMANDER IN CHIEF at the time decided the reason was to disarm Iraq through violence and killing and the destructive nature of war. Its just the truth. Because you don’t like the truth does not mean it is not the truth. POST#3415


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 30, 2021)

Correll wrote: Bush went a little overboard trying to gin up support for the war. POST#137 



Correll said:


> Bush went a little overboard trying to gin up support for the war.



NFBW wrote: So, Correll what was the argument for war that W was a “little” overboard about?  POST#3416


----------



## Correll (Aug 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: You are a liar.  Your answer is on the record. POST#3415
> 
> NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414
> ......




Stopped reading here. Why are you posting such lies?


Do you realize that your need to lie so much, is your brain dealing with the fact that you have lost the arugument?


----------



## Correll (Aug 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Bush went a little overboard trying to gin up support for the war. POST#137
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW wrote: So, Correll what was the argument for war that W was a “little” overboard about?  POST#3416




Who the fuck cares at this point? We covered it ad nauseum. Why are you bringing it back up at this point?

DO you have anything new to say? Or are you just being an anti-American, anti-white, anti-Christian spam bot?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why are you posting such lies?




Show why you think this is a lie.

NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414

This was your answer:

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375

Where did you explain why when nobody started a war to do nation building Iraq you think starting a war to do nation building was a valid argument for invading Iraq.


----------



## Correll (Aug 30, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Show why you think this is a lie.
> 
> NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414




Because I clearly and completely addressed that point. 


Why are you being such a dishonest spam bot? Seriously, what the fuck are you doing?


Is just spamming like a bot, all you have left? Is that really what you want to do here, rather than actually face the Truth like a Man?


This is a test of your Moral Courage and you are failing miserably.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 30, 2021)

Correll said:


> Because I clearly and completely addressed that point.



NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414

Here is your answer. 

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375

You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 31, 2021)

Correll said:


> Seriously, what the fuck are you doing?



NFBW wrote: Opposing your disinformation campaign about the ramp up to war in Iraq by exposing your huge Iraq war lie that there was an argument for war based on sending in a ground invasion to do nation building in Iraq. The AUMF set the reason (WMD) for war in stone so it is a lie when you say we went into Iraq to do national building. POST#3422

NFBW wrote:  Do you Correll believe it is acceptable Christian moral policy to support killing innocent Iraqis (accidentally as collateral damage) for the purpose of reconstructing Iraq into a system of government and civil society that would begin to emulate the exceptional shining city on a hill that America is alleged to be. POST#3422

NFBW wrote:  Is it aligned with the teaching of JESUS to claim that you supported your fabricated story that there was a humanitarian reason for starting a war when there is no historical justification or record of that being the case for war that you can cite. POST#3422

NFBW wrote: The invasion of Iraq was evil. Half a million Iraqis died as a result. POST#3422

NFBW wrote:  I agree with this Christian’s general perspective on the Jan 6 insurrection at Capitol Hill as a fitting application to your dishonest misuse of the flag by trying to legitimize the invasion of Iraq as a national intent to reduce the threat of terrorists by helping Iraqis to live in a better system of government. POST#3422

NFBW POST#3422 QUOTE:  “””Now we’re forced to reckon collectively with how the misuse of Christianity and the abuse of the American flag can easily legitimate such evil.





__





						The survival and soul of our democracy require virtue in leadership, not lore
					

The myth of American exceptionalism is crumbling




					www.christiancentury.org
				




Moral values and national virtues are not self-enforcing. They require people willing to stand up for them, a citizenry convinced that integrity, honesty, and civility are essential to American life. “””


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 31, 2021)

Correll wrote: Not only did I answer the point about "was it a valid reason", but, everytime you say, "half a million iraqis" you are being a dishonest anti-American troll.  POST#3412. 

NFBW POST#3423  Where in this question were you asked, “was it a valid reason”? 

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

or 

NFBW wrote:  How can nation building be a valid reason  for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3423

NFBW wrote:  Was nation building a reason given to the President by Congress for the use of military force in Iraq in the specific AUMF that was passed in October 2003? POST#3423


NFBW POST#3423 Will you answer this question? 

NFBW wrote: In recognition of your claim of pre-war support for “nation building” as a valid reason for starting the invasion and war with Iraq in March 2003 do you accept the fact that Congress did not authorize the use of military force for any reason other than that which was directly tied to UNSC Resolutions that involved disarming Iraq of the threat of the dictatorship’s continued possession  of WMD? POST#3423

NFBW wrote:  If you need help recalling what you have already written regarding the AUMF here is a couple of your posts. 
POST#3423 :

Correll wrote:  I never said that it was in the Authorization. POST#3369

Correll wrote: Authorization was the END of the debate on support for the war, not the whole of it.  POST#3361


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 31, 2021)

Correll Wrote: The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one. POST#1552 

NFBW wrote: I’m taking you at your word that the case for war to do nation building in Iraq was not made in the authorization bill. The AUMF. POST#3424

Correll wrote: I never said that it {nation building} was in the Authorization. POST#3360


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 31, 2021)

Nuff said. 

Correll Wrote: The case for war was made in the authorization bill.  POST#1552 

Correll wrote: I never said that it {nation building} was in the Authorization. POST#3360


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 1, 2021)

Correll wrote: Is that really what you want to do here, rather than actually face the Truth like a Man? POST#3420

NFBW #3426 wrote: This is the type of exchange that adds to the explanation as to what I am doing here:

Correll Wrote: The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many of stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one. POST#1552 

NFBW wrote: There is no UNSC resolution to do nation building in Iraq and out of a zillion words W sent to Congress as required by the AUMF as justification for war, nation building is nowhere close to being mentioned. POST#3357

Correll wrote: I never said that it was in the Authorization. POST#3360

NFBW wrote: There is zero truth to your huge Iraq lie and claim Correll that there was a supportable argument for war during the infamous ramp up to war that was based on removing a threat based on nation building. POST#3426


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 1, 2021)

NFBW wrote: Tell us Correll - was removing SH from his access to Oil revenues and his authority to issue oil contracts to France and Russia instead of the US and UK a valid pre-war argument to start a war that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis in a needless war? POST#3427

NFBW wrote: Tell us Correll - was ending SH’s brutal dictatorship to satisfy the burning desire and yearning of the Arab Street for freedom a valid pre-war argument to start a war that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis in a needless war? POST#3427


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 1, 2021)

Correll said:


> This is a test of your Moral Courage and you are failing miserably.



NFBW wrote: Do you understand why your post demonstrates the fact that you are a racist and religious bigot? POST#3428

Correll wrote: But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.  Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne. POST #216 November 17 2015



Correll said:


> Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 2, 2021)

Correll wrote:  4. My being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with my logic, or my support of the invasion. You are just being a religious bigot. 21MAY17-POST#857

NFBW wrote: @Correl’s religious belief is at the root of his expressed logic and support of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. He has a higher regard for myth than for facts and truth about things. - His concept about the founding of America as a Christian Nation is based on myths of his own creation as well as myths he has come across over the years. Here are a couple of Correll core myths. 21SEP02-POST#3429

Correll wrote:  The Enlightenment Era principles of the Founders, is an outgrowth of Christian thought. The idea of equality of man, comes from the idea that God, the CHRISTIAN God, created all of us, equally. - They state that clearly in the Declaration. 20MAR08-POST#1066

NFBW wrote:  The Declaration does not refer to the Christian God but Correll swears by that myth. 21SEP02-POST#3429

NFBW wrote:  On Iraq Correll operates under the belief that there was a pre-invasion argument to start the war to nation build Iraq into a functional democracy. 21SEP02-POST#3429

NFBW wrote:  Neither myth is true or tied to reality but they are fundamentally a big part of @Correll’s belief system. 21SEP02-POST#3429


----------



## Correll (Sep 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: No. ....



I stopped reading here. Your refusal to move the discussion forward is....tiresome.


----------



## Correll (Sep 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Opposing your disinformation campaign about the ramp up to war in Iraq by exposing your huge Iraq war lie that there was an argument for war based on sending in a ground invasion to do nation building in Iraq. The AUMF set the reason ....



Stopped reading here. Stop being a spam bot. Make a new point or just let it drop.


----------



## Correll (Sep 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Not only did I answer the point about "was it a valid reason", but, everytime you say, "half a million iraqis" you are being a dishonest anti-American troll.  POST#3412.
> 
> NFBW POST#3423  Where in this question were you asked, “was it a valid reason”?
> 
> ...



Stopped reading here. I'm more and more done with your talking in circles bullshit. Make a new point. Move the discussion forward. Say something new or drop it.


----------



## Correll (Sep 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll Wrote: The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one. POST#1552
> 
> NFBW wrote: I’m taking you at your word that the case for war to do nation building in Iraq was not made in the authorization bill. The AUMF. POST#3424
> 
> Correll wrote: I never said that it {nation building} was in the Authorization. POST#3360




WHY THE FUCK DID YOU  POST THIS?


----------



## Correll (Sep 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Nuff said.
> 
> Correll Wrote: The case for war was made in the authorization bill.  POST#1552
> 
> Correll wrote: I never said that it {nation building} was in the Authorization. POST#3360




Dude. That is pathetic of you. Have you really sunk to this level? 

Taking out  of context quote and playing gotcha games like a child?


----------



## Correll (Sep 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Tell us Correll - was removing SH from his access to Oil revenues and his authority to issue oil contracts to France and Russia instead of the US and UK a valid pre-war argument to start a war that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis in a needless war? POST#3427
> 
> NFBW wrote: Tell us Correll - was ending SH’s brutal dictatorship to satisfy the burning desire and yearning of the Arab Street for freedom a valid pre-war argument to start a war that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis in a needless war? POST#3427




You have accepted the principle of collateral damage. Thus, every time you whine about "half a million iraqis", you are lying.


----------



## Correll (Sep 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Do you understand why your post demonstrates the fact that you are a racist and religious bigot? POST#3428
> 
> Correll wrote: But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.  Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne. POST #216 November 17 2015




You made no point. WHY THE FUCK DID YOU POST THIS?


----------



## Correll (Sep 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote:  4. My being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with my logic, or my support of the invasion. You are just being a religious bigot. 21MAY17-POST#857
> 
> NFBW wrote: @Correl’s religious belief is at the root of his expressed logic and support of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.....




i stopped reading here. I'm bored with your anti-Christian bigotry. It has been well established. 


If you have a new point to make, LEAD with it, because if you bury in such garbage, I will never see it. Cause, i've lost my patience with your bullshit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 3, 2021)

Correll wrote: Taking out of context quote and playing gotcha games like a child? 21SEP03- POST#3420

NFBW wrote: What is out of context? Are you now arguing that ‘nation building’ is in the  AUMF as a case for starting a war if necessary? 21SEP03-POST#3438


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 6, 2021)

@emilyngheim wrote: However, even though I believe the arguments about WMD were valid, and these chemical weapons were most likely moved into Syria and used later, this was not PROVEN as in due process before making a decision to act and deprive citizens of liberty. 16SEP28-POST#443-SyriaWMD



emilynghiem said:


> chemical weapons were most likely moved into Syria




NFBW wrote: As a very thoughtful Christian as your post stands out amongst the mess - I am curious as to why you believed Iraq’s WMD were moved into Syria. Do you still think that was a possibility. 21SEP06-POST#3439


----------



## Correll (Sep 6, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> @emilyngheim wrote: However, even though I believe the arguments about WMD were valid, and these chemical weapons were most likely moved into Syria and used later, this was not PROVEN as in due process before making a decision to act and deprive citizens of liberty. 16SEP28-POST#443-SyriaWMD
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bullshit. Your goal is to find an excuse to smear her, and White Christians as "bloodthirsty:.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 7, 2021)

“The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction“ Sen KERRY OCT 2 2002.

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. 21JUN07-POST#1519

NFBW wrote:  In OCTOBER 2002 were you Correll higher up on the fact chain and ability to know than Senator John Kerry who voted on the AUMF. 21JUN07-POST#3441

On October 2, 2002, John Kerry said, 
“The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections.” 02OCT02-KERRY-AUMF-01

NFBW wrote: There was only one reason written into the AUMF and that was to enforce UNSC RESOLUTIONS with regard to Iraq’s WMD. 21JUN07-POST#3441


----------



## Correll (Sep 7, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> “The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction“ Sen KERRY OCT 2 2002.
> 
> Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. 21JUN07-POST#1519
> 
> ...




We have covered all of this many times. I addressed it clearly and completely. 

You like going over all shit. Go read it again. You don't need to include me in your trip down memory lane.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 7, 2021)

Correll said:


> We have covered all of this many times. I addressed it clearly and completely.



You are a liar. 

This is a new question - I just came across Kerry’s quote  that debunks your big lie that Iraq was invaded to do nation building. 


NFBW wrote: In OCTOBER 2002 were you Correll higher up on the fact chain and ability to know than Senator John Kerry who voted on the AUMF. 21SEP07-POST#3441


----------



## Correll (Sep 8, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar.
> 
> This is a new question - I just came across Kerry’s quote  that debunks your big lie that Iraq was invaded to do nation building.
> 
> ...




That you found someone who disagrees with me is irrelevant. 


Seriously. You are coming across as bat shit crazy now.


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 13, 2021)

Saddam started the war, Bush II finished it, after years and years of cease fire violations any one of which is more enough cause. Bush II didn't start it, and we now know 'nation building' among 7th century savages will never work. Anything new here? Nah. Foreign vermin threatening an American President's life? Yeah, doesn't matter whose Daddy it was, waste the piece of shit and make sure no other sociopath will take the risk.


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Saddam started the war, Bush II finished it, after years and years of cease fire violations any one of which is more enough cause. Bush II didn't start it, and we now know 'nation building' among 7th century savages will never work. Anything new here? Nah. Foreign vermin threatening an American President's life? Yeah, doesn't matter whose Daddy it was, waste the piece of shit and make sure no other sociopath will take the risk.



The invasion of Iraq was the most stupid foreign policy blunder in 50 years.. Iraq was already crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions and was no threat to the US or their neighbors.

Read Clean Break Strategy.


----------



## Correll (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> The invasion of Iraq was the most stupid foreign policy blunder in 50 years.. Iraq was already crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions and was no threat to the US or their neighbors.
> 
> Read Clean Break Strategy.




If you have a point to make about that strategy, MAKE it, don't vaguely reference it.


And sorry, this thread is not about the isssues. This thread is about NOt, trying to smear White Christians as "wacist" or "bloodthirst", as part of his plan to spread hate and division in our society. 

Any attempt to actually discuss the issues, will be buried. So, maybe go start your own thread?


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> If you have a point to make about that strategy, MAKE it, don't vaguely reference it.
> 
> 
> And sorry, this thread is not about the isssues. This thread is about NOt, trying to smear White Christians as "wacist" or "bloodthirst", as part of his plan to spread hate and division in our society.
> ...



Read Clean Break Strategy and the PNAC letter of 1998 or you will never know what Iraq was about.


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> The invasion of Iraq was the most stupid foreign policy blunder in 50 years.. Iraq was already crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions and was no threat to the US or their neighbors.
> 
> Read Clean Break Strategy.


Rubbish. They had every oportunity, backed by hundreds of billions of dollars; they chose to keep fucking each other like the feral desert bandits they've always been. screw them, they made their own bed. Same with Afghans. Even the idiot Japanese racists were doing good after 20 years of Whitey oppression N Stuff. They didn't make excuses then.


----------



## Correll (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Read Clean Break Strategy and the PNAC letter of 1998 or you will never know what Iraq was about.



That some jews had an interest is no shock to me, nor does it strike me as "wrong".  

What you need to do, to justify your odd behavior, is demonstrate, some form of abuse of power or undue influence. 


Which is not done, by just saying "jew".


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> That you found someone who disagrees with me is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Seriously. You are coming across as bat shit crazy now.



You wouldn't say that if you weren't so ignorant about Iraq and the Middle East.


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

DudleySmith said:


> Rubbish. They had every oportunity, backed by hundreds of billions of dollars; they chose to keep fucking each other like the feral desert bandits they've always been. screw them, they made their own bed. Same with Afghans. Even the idiot Japanese racists were doing good after 20 years of Whitey oppression N Stuff. They didn't make excuses then.



Dudley, have you ever been to Iraq or any country in the ME?

Your level of ignorance is real special.


----------



## Correll (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> You wouldn't say that if you weren't so ignorant about Iraq and the Middle East.




Says the man that doesn't even try to make his point.


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> That some jews had an interest is no shock to me, nor does it strike me as "wrong".
> 
> What you need to do, to justify your odd behavior, is demonstrate, some form of abuse of power or undue influence.
> 
> ...



Why was Israel demanding that Saddam be overthrown? What did they stand to gain?


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> Says the man that doesn't even try to make his point.



I am not a man, but I know the ME for the past 70 years. You're stubborn but you're a dumbass.


----------



## Correll (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Why was Israel demanding that Saddam be overthrown? What did they stand to gain?




I assume the deposing of a leader who had the goal of unifying the Arab World, or at least a good sized chunk of it. 

If that would happen, it would be bad for Israel. The Arabs being divided and weak, works for them.


This is of course, completely reasonable of them, and them working towards it, is completely normal international politics. 


What part of this, triggers you?


----------



## Correll (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> I am not a man, but I know the ME for the past 70 years. You're stubborn but you're a dumbass.




Ah, you're a machine? How cool. I've never met a machine that could pass teh Turing TEst before. THough on this site, that bar is pretty low. 


So, don't break an articulator patting yourself on your back.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Why was Israel demanding that Saddam be overthrown? What did they stand to gain?





surada said:


> Why was Israel demanding that Saddam be overthrown? What did they stand to gain?


 
   Interesting question, surada.    Long ago---way back in the 50's when I was reading the islamo nazi literature on which you were bred,  I asked my mother,  "WHEN DID PEOPLE KNOW WHAT ADOLF HITLER 
WAS"?     I asked because the islamo nazi literature back then that I read was both current AND past and was intensely into what we, 
today, call  "holocaust denial"    and the american deniers INVARIABLY 
said     "NOBODY KNEW"    My mother recalled being in a movie theatre watching a news reel of the  hero of islam,  ADOLF at age 
16  (1936)    Suddenly a jew stood up, shook his FIST and yelled 
"DROP DEAD"  in Yiddish,   she also recalled that her functionally 
illiterate father was desperate to get his many brothers out 
of Poland and Austria.   How did  JEWS KNOW? --those who could 
read his writings in German knew    Those who can, can read the writings and speeches of the islamic hero  SADDAM  (organizer and funder of the Munich massacre) in arabic.   (try not to salivate, surada)


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> That some jews had an interest is no shock to me, nor does it strike me as "wrong".
> 
> What you need to do, to justify your odd behavior, is demonstrate, some form of abuse of power or undue influence.
> 
> ...




Have you read Clean Break Strategy?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Have you read Clean Break Strategy?


  Just keep saying  "jew"  surada.    JOIN THE ELITE CLUB of
  Khutbah Jumaat feces flingers who dance on the dead bodies
  of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> Interesting question, surada.    Long ago---way back in the 50's when I was reading the islamo nazi literature on which you were bred,  I asked my mother,  "WHEN DID PEOPLE KNOW WHAT ADOLF HITLER
> WAS"?     I asked because the islamo nazi literature back then that I read was both current AND past and was intensely into what we,
> today, call  "holocaust denial"    and the american deniers INVARIABLY
> said     "NOBODY KNEW"    My mother recalled being in a movie theatre watching a news reel of the  hero of islam,  ADOLF at age
> ...



Hitler wasn't 16 in 1936. Nobody much knew what Hitler was doing until 1933 when Samuel Untermyer declared war on Germany from the safety of Madison Square Garden.

Saddam wasn't making speeches. He wasn't born until 1937.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Hitler wasn't 16 in 1936. Nobody much knew what Hitler was doing until 1933 when Samuel Untermyer declared war on Germany from the safety of Madison Square Garden.
> 
> Saddam wasn't making speeches. He wasn't born until 1937.


   reading your posts,  surada---is like listening to a Khutbah Jumaat feces fling-----one deceitful deflection after the other-----MY MOTHER was 16 in 1936.    The islamic hero Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1923 and it was published circa 1925.   Samuel Untermyer READ it and warned an UNHEEDING world whilst the  islamic world hailed 
its latest  HEIL NABI .     Saddam Hussein began his political ASCENT in 
the early 60s as a BAATHIST


----------



## Correll (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Have you read Clean Break Strategy?




And again, you fail to even try to support your jew bashing. So, that's a fail on your part. You are failing. You look like someone who knows that his position is weak as shit and is trying to bluff his way though.


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> And again, you fail to even try to support your jew bashing. So, that's a fail on your part. You are failing. You look like someone who knows that his position is weak as shit and is trying to bluff his way though.



Look . I am tired of fooling with you.. You are too ignorant and stupid about the ME to ever learn a thing...  so let it go.


----------



## surada (Sep 13, 2021)

Correll said:


> And again, you fail to even try to support your jew bashing. So, that's a fail on your part. You are failing. You look like someone who knows that his position is weak as shit and is trying to bluff his way though.



Jew bashing? Nah. I'm content to let the Israelis speak for themselves. Bye.


----------



## Correll (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Look . I am tired of fooling with you.. You are too ignorant and stupid about the ME to ever learn a thing...  so let it go.




If you don't want to engage in discussion, than don't comment. These drive by snipes and jabs, are the act of a coward or a troll. 


And a pretty weak ass troll at that.


----------



## Correll (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Jew bashing? Nah. I'm content to let the Israelis speak for themselves. Bye.




EVERY nation has national interests and polices to pursue them. 


When you act like it is a scandal that a JEW nation does what ALL nations do, ALL THE TIME, 


you are just jew bashing. 



It is pathetic. 



AND, you are doing it badly.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Look . I am tired of fooling with you.. You are too ignorant and stupid about the ME to ever learn a thing...  so let it go.


   "THE ME"  ???       is discussion confined to  "THE ME"?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 13, 2021)

surada said:


> Jew bashing? Nah. I'm content to let the Israelis speak for themselves. Bye.


good idea-----anyone interested can learn all about islam and the
muslims and suradas  of the middle east and the MUSLIM WORLD  by attending Khutbah Jumaat feces flings


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 22, 2021)

NFBW wrote: Hmmmmmm! There are two separate Correll ’s sharing the same screen name. 21SEP22-POST#3470

Correll wrote: As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq. 21AUG08-POST#3010

Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454


----------



## Correll (Sep 23, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Hmmmmmm! There are two separate Correll ’s sharing the same screen name. 21SEP22-POST#3470
> 
> Correll wrote: As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq. 21AUG08-POST#3010
> 
> Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#454




Wow. What an increadible asshole you are being. You keep this up, and I will start reporting you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 24, 2021)

Correll said:


> Wow. What an increadible asshole you are being. You keep this up, and I will start reporting you



NFBW wrote: Normal people don’t run from the facts and the truth in that way.. They attempt to coherently and honestly explain why the taking of opposing positions on the exact same issue would be justified.  21SEP24-POST#3472

NFBW wrote: I contend that your secular belief that America was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation combined with your incomprehensible moral justification and nonchalant ambivalence for the killing of a single Muslim inhabitant of Iraq let alone half a million, for the purpose of nation building by use of deadly American military power and force combined with your false accusations against the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests combined with your refusal to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election due to fraudulent votes cast by large numbers of black voters in major cities excludes you from being considered a normal person. 21SEP23-POST#6


----------



## the other mike (Sep 25, 2021)

surada said:


> Look . I am tired of fooling with you.. You are too ignorant and stupid about the ME to ever learn a thing...  so let it go.





irosie91 said:


> "THE ME"  ???       is discussion confined to  "THE ME"?


You 2 snowflakes thru shooting BBs at 
each other yet ?


----------



## Correll (Sep 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Normal people don’t run from the facts and the truth in that way.. They attempt to coherently and honestly explain why the taking of opposing positions on the exact same issue would be justified.  21SEP24-POST#3472
> 
> NFBW wrote: I contend that your secular belief that America was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation combined with your incomprehensible moral justification and nonchalant ambivalence for the killing of a single Muslim inhabitant of Iraq let alone half a million, for the purpose of nation building by use of deadly American military power and force combined with your false accusations against the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests combined with your refusal to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election due to fraudulent votes cast by large numbers of black voters in major cities excludes you from being considered a normal person. 21SEP23-POST#6









Peaceful? You are the liar here, not me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> Peaceful? You are the liar here, not me.




NFBW wrote: The violence is not BLM organized violence. That newscast photo  you posted is spontaneous violence that erupted after a police shooting. So quit your racist lies if you think you are not a racist. You HAVE separated the Jan6 rioters from the peaceful Trump protesters but you cant do it for the peaceful BLM rioters. You condemn the entire movement for the actions of criminals that are not at all connected to BLM. You are a racist liar for that fact. 21Sep26-POST#


----------



## Correll (Sep 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The violence is not BLM organized violence. That newscast photo  you posted is spontaneous violence that erupted after a police shooting. So quit your racist lies if you think you are not a racist. You HAVE separated the Jan6 rioters from the peaceful Trump protesters but you cant do it for the peaceful BLM rioters. You condemn the entire movement for the actions of criminals that are not at all connected to BLM. You are a racist liar for that fact. 21Sep26-POST#




Right leaning riots breaking out spontaneously at right leaning demonstrations? I can think of ONE example in my lifetime. 


Left leaning riots breaking out "Spontaneously" at leftist demonstrations? So many it stopped being news. So many that the damages was over ONE BILLION DOLLARS. So many that scores of people died. 


So, yeah, I'm less generous with the leftards.  


And you saying "wacism" is just you talking like a retarded child. You should drop that shit. It makes you look like a retarded child. Who is an asshole.


----------



## surada (Sep 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> And again, you fail to even try to support your jew bashing. So, that's a fail on your part. You are failing. You look like someone who knows that his position is weak as shit and is trying to bluff his way though.



What did you think of the West Bank before 1967? Have you ever read Moshe Dayan?









						The British Army in Palestine | National Army Museum
					

In the 1940s, the British Army found itself stuck in the middle of a growing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. The momentous events that followed led to the creation of the State of Israel.




					www.nam.ac.uk


----------



## Correll (Sep 26, 2021)

surada said:


> What did you think of the West Bank before 1967? Have you ever read Moshe Dayan?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Links are to support points, not make them for you. What you just did there was make a vague hint that you think the west bank was nicer a long time ago, only  hinting at a cause. 

That is you, not doing ANYTHING. 


EPIC FAIL ON YOUR PART.


----------



## surada (Sep 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> Links are to support points, not make them for you. What you just did there was make a vague hint that you think the west bank was nicer a long time ago, only  hinting at a cause.
> 
> That is you, not doing ANYTHING.
> 
> ...



Have you ever been to Palestine?


----------



## Correll (Sep 26, 2021)

surada said:


> Have you ever been to Palestine?




Have you ever had the balls to make a firm point that can be addressed?


----------



## surada (Sep 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> Have you ever had the balls to make a firm point that can be addressed?



Yes. I knew enough about the Middle East and Iraq to know the war would be an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 26, 2021)

Correll said:


> Right leaning riots breaking out spontaneously at right leaning demonstrations? I can think of ONE example in my lifetime



You mean the protest that was organized by a US president who was overwhelmingly rejected from having a second term in an election that he lost but promoted the big LIE that he won? The ONE right wing protest that had a purpose to overturn the election by canceling the votes of black Americans who live in large cities.

Not one BLM peaceful protest where violence broke out was the organizer seeking to overturn an election by canceling the votes of white people who live anywhere.

So what is your point?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 26, 2021)

surada said:


> What did you think of the West Bank before 1967? Have you ever read Moshe Dayan?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


   Moshe Dayan made lots of mistakes based on his personal 
   philosophy and a level of basic dishonesty and ego


----------



## Correll (Sep 26, 2021)

surada said:


> Yes. I knew enough about the Middle East and Iraq to know the war would be an unmitigated disaster.




Unsupported assertions is all you got? Tell you what, Not has a lot of spamming of anti-American and racist spam to do. Don't clutter up the thread with even less relevant shit.


----------



## Correll (Sep 26, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You mean the protest that was organized by a US president who was overwhelmingly rejected ...



Yes, the protest organized by the US president that lost. That was the ONE example I can think of in my life, of a right leaning demonstration erupting into a right leaning riot,  while there are hundreds of examples of that happening over the last 5 years on the Left.


That is my point. One instance of things getting out of control, is a lot different than HUNDREDS of "instances" of things getting out of control. 


You want to address that, or you want to say some more stupid shit?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 26, 2021)

Correll wrote: One instance of things getting out of control, is a lot different than HUNDREDS of "instances" of things getting out of control. 21SEP26-POST#3485

NFBW wrote: The purpose of the DJT organized peaceful protest on Jan6 was a ‘one time’ attack on the peaceful transfer of power that has been a cornerstone of American Democracy for over two centuries. The specific goal from DJT and his legal council, through all his loyal supporters, and through the 20,000 that attended the Jan6 ‘Stop the Steal (based on the Big Lie) protest, and by the thousand or so violent rioters themselves, was to overturn the election by canceling black American votes in five swing states that Trump lost. The violence by the rioting mob inside the Capitol, the peaceful protest outside the Capitol, and DJT’s legal team all wanted Pence to make a mess of the 2020 election in order to throw the election back to the House of Representatives where DJT could stay in office for a second term. The Jan6 violence was in Sync with DJT’s sinister and dishonest plan. On the other hand, none of the acts of violence resulting from wrongful deaths by police, of black people, are in any way connected to the organizational goal of BLM to peacefully petition for change. You are running from the point that not one of incidents of spontaneous violence over past few years can be pinned on the BLM peaceful protest movement, liberals, Democrats but the rioters on Jan6 wanted exactly what DJT wanted. EXACTLY! 21SEP26-POST#3486


----------



## Correll (Sep 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: One instance of things getting out of control, is a lot different than HUNDREDS of "instances" of things getting out of control. 21SEP26-POST#3485
> 
> NFBW wrote: The purpose of the DJT organized peaceful protest on Jan6 was a ‘one time’ attack on the peaceful transfer of power that has been a cornerstone of American Democracy for over two centuries. The specific goal from DJT and his legal council, through all his loyal supporters, and through the 20,000 that attended the Jan6 ‘Stop the Steal (based on the Big Lie) protest, and by the thousand or so violent rioters themselves, was to overturn the election by canceling black American votes in five swing states....




That is your self serving spin on it, not their stated intent. 


My point about the difference between ONE example of an "out of control" riot breaking out, and hundreds of them, stands, 


as you did not even try to address it. 



Get back to me when there have been hundreds of examples of riots breaking out at right leaning peaceful demonstrations, and we can have a different discussion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> My point about the difference between ONE example of an "out of control" riot breaking out, and hundreds of them, stands,


  it stands with your pathetic uses of false equivalence as your choice method of lying this time around.,

Looters and other violent criminals that disrupt BLM peaceful protests are not associated with the organizers.  Jan6 rioters were committing violence in order to “STOP THE STEAL” for DJT because you have said you believe the absurd bullshit that the election was stolen from the cursed weak powerless victim DJT. 

The violence at any BLM peaceful protest is disruptive and devastates the message that the organizers want  to convey. The violence on Jan6 was in harmony and support of DJT’s message to fight and save America from all thise black places were voter fraud runs rampant. That DJT message was taken to heart by the  right wing white evangelical Christian nationalists and white supremacy types fully intent on canceling black votes iin major cities. Get Pence to do it or hang the weak MFer.  All your facts and lies don’t stand except in your lying hate filled head.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 27, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is your self serving spin on it, not their stated intent.
> 
> 
> My point about the difference between ONE example of an "out of control" riot breaking out, and hundreds of them, stands,
> ...


   Get back to me when you have dead bodies


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 27, 2021)

NFBW wrote: The specific goal from DJT and his legal council, through all his loyal supporters, and through the 20,000 that attended the Jan6 ‘Stop the Steal (based on the Big Lie) protest, and by the thousand or so violent rioters themselves, was to overturn the election by canceling black American votes in five swing states that Trump lost. 21SEP27-POST#3486


Correll wrote: That is your self serving spin on it, not their stated intent. 21SEP27-POST#3487

NFBW 21SEP27-POST#3490 wrote: No! I am quoting the orange goon directly as my source as the basis of that fact. And there are dozens of quotes By the insurrectionists themselves that they were following DJT’s orders. 

“”” "The 2020 Presidential Election was, by far, the greatest Election Fraud in the history," continued Trump. "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President who would be VETOING the horrific Socialistic Bills that are rapidly going through Congress, including Open Borders, High Taxes, Massive Regulations, and so much else!” DJT-21May15 INSURRECTION “””


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 27, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. I knew enough about the Middle East and Iraq to know the war would be an unmitigated disaster.
> ...


    play out right in front of my  rural 20 year old eyes.  Two GIANT
    PRIMITIVE TRIBES----with weapons------way back circa 1970


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 27, 2021)

Correll wrote: I acknowledge the possibility that some of the riots might have been truly spontaneous events without any input from blm. 21MAR07-POST-#1002

NFBW wrote: The police shooting in Kenosha sparked a few days of spontaneous riots that had no input or connection to  BLM but you had no control over your penchant for lying when you posted a copy of a screenshot from CNN’s coverage of the Kenosha riot and you call me a liar for stating the FACT that BLM is a peaceful protest movement. BLM had nothing to do with the violence in Kenosha - I am correct. You are a liar.  21SEP27- POST#3492 






Correll wrote: Peaceful? You are the liar here, not me. 21SEP26-POST#3475


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Sep 27, 2021)

The Banker said:


> A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%.  They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.
> 
> I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.  I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.
> 
> ...


Not me. Muslims want it. They gain pleasure when they kill non Muslims.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Sep 27, 2021)

surada said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about. Operation  Mass Appeal was on a mission to create a need to attack Iraq. Have you never read Bibi's Clean Break Strategy from 1996 or the PNAC letter to Clinton in 1998? Look at the dual citizen signatories. It was a complete cock up.


Muslims want war. It makes them happy thinking that war will guarantee them paradise and hopefully bring their Mahdi who Muslims see as their savior. Muslims will lie saying a percentage wants that, with a percentage not wanting that.


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> it stands with your pathetic uses of false equivalence as your choice method of lying this time around.,
> 
> Looters and other violent criminals that disrupt BLM peaceful protests are not associated with the organizers.  Jan6 rioters were committing violence in order to “STOP THE STEAL” for DJT because you have said you believe the absurd bullshit that the election was stolen from the cursed weak powerless victim DJT.
> 
> The violence at any BLM peaceful protest is disruptive and devastates the message that the organizers want  to convey. The violence on Jan6 was in harmony and support of DJT’s message to fight and save America from all thise black places were voter fraud runs rampant. That DJT message was taken to heart by the  right wing white evangelical Christian nationalists and white supremacy types fully intent on canceling black votes iin major cities. Get Pence to do it or hang the weak MFer.  All your facts and lies don’t stand except in your lying hate filled head.




That is your self serving opinion, and as such it is utterly worthless. Less that than in fact, because you have revealed yourself to be a bad faith debater. 

IN fact, I would say that thanks to your ANTI-CREDIBILITY, that you saying that, makes it LESS believable. 


My point stands. The 1/6 riot was an ACTUAL ISOLATED INCIDENT of an out of control riot breaking out at a "mostly peaceful" demonstration, 


while the HUNDREDS OF LEFTY RIOTS, are a PATTERN, in "harmony and support" of the BLM (and antifa) messages of anti-white racism and anti-Americanism and what have you. (they are not very clear, on purpose)


You are teh hate filled one here, not me, NOT. YOu are the one who came here to spam anti-American and Anti-white and anti-Christian hate, while I am here to discuss and learn from the Iraq War, so that hopefully next time, a similar confrontation arises, and there will be a next time, we can do better. 


YOu are just here to spread hate and racism and division.


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> Get back to me when you have dead bodies




Dozens have died in the lefty riots of the last 5 years. So, we got plenty of dead bodies.  


My point stands. One 4 hour riot is less of a problem than 4 YEARS of riots with scores death and over a billion dollars in damages.

Yet you people want to just sort of gloss over your side's political violence, while making a MOUNTAIN out of the ONE example of criminal violence on our side.


You are vile scum of the Earth.


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The specific goal from DJT and his legal council, through all his loyal supporters, and through the 20,000 that attended the Jan6 ‘Stop the Steal (based on the Big Lie) protest, and by the thousand or so violent rioters themselves, was to overturn the election by canceling black American votes in five swing states that Trump lost. 21SEP27-POST#3486
> 
> 
> Correll wrote: That is your self serving spin on it, not their stated intent. 21SEP27-POST#3487
> ...




Show me the quote of Trump sayhing that, or admit that you are just a vile, race baiting lying bastard. 

EXACTLY THAT TOO, not something that IN YOUR MIND, you know what he "meant", you aspberger ridden weirdo.


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I acknowledge the possibility that some of the riots might have been truly spontaneous events without any input from blm. 21MAR07-POST-#1002
> 
> NFBW wrote: The police shooting in Kenosha sparked a few days of spontaneous riots that had no input or connection to  BLM but you had no control over your penchant for lying when you posted a copy of a screenshot from CNN’s coverage of the Kenosha riot and you call me a liar for stating the FACT that BLM is a peaceful protest movement. BLM had nothing to do with the violence in Kenosha - I am correct. You are a liar.  21SEP27- POST#3492
> 
> ...




I have no way of knowing if the riots were truly spontaneous or not. Even if they were spontaneous, they were done, imo, by people who did so IN SUPPORT of teh BLM movement and message. 


It is worth nothing that BLM has issues calls for racist violence from the public, on numerous occasions.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> Dozens have died in the lefty riots of the last 5 years. So, we got plenty of dead bodies.
> 
> 
> My point stands. One 4 hour riot is less of a problem than 4 YEARS of riots with scores death and over a billion dollars in damages.
> ...


   you are preaching to the choir


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> you are preaching to the choir




Ah, I misunderstood the intent of your post. I though you meant is as a challenge.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

Correll wrote: I have no way of knowing if the riots were truly spontaneous or not. 21SEP28-POST#3498

NFBW wrote: If peaceful protest is not organized in advance by a BLM organizer or by no other organization then violence that occurs immediately when word first begins to spread that a black person has been shot or in George Floyd’s case suffocated by cops you could know those riots are spontaneous unless you are an idiot. And the black organizers of peaceful protest have nothing to do with spontaneous violence unless you are a white rightwing cultural Christian racist like you Correll 21SEP28-POST#3501


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: I have no way of knowing if the riots were truly spontaneous or not. 21SEP28-POST#3498
> 
> NFBW wrote: If peaceful protest is not organized in advance by a BLM organizer or by no other organization then violence that occurs immediately when word first begins to spread that a black person has been shot or in George Floyd’s case suffocated by cops you could know those riots are spontaneous unless you are an idiot. And the black organizers of peaceful protest have nothing to do with spontaneous violence unless you are a white rightwing cultural Christian racist like you Correll 21SEP28-POST#3


   what black organized peaceful protests?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> what black organized peaceful protests?



BLM


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Sep 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> That is your self serving opinion, and as such it is utterly worthless. Less that than in fact, because you have revealed yourself to be a bad faith debater.
> 
> IN fact, I would say that thanks to your ANTI-CREDIBILITY, that you saying that, makes it LESS believable.
> 
> ...


No riot at the capital. People said were in.  Official people politely let them in standing to one side. Liars are against Trump. What do you expect when Muslims are working with Dems?  That is the truth.  A gun was not fired.  No one panicked. That would have happened had a gun gone off.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> BLM


In my town BLM has a per week GSW to the head stat


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

irosie91 said:


> In my town BLM has a per week GSW to the head stat



What the duck are you talking about, idiot?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

NFBW wrote: Looters and other violent criminals that disrupt BLM peaceful protests are not associated with the organizers. 21SEP27-POST#3488

Correll wrote: That is your self serving opinion, and as such it is utterly worthless. 
21SEP28-POST#3495

NFBW wrote:  My statement regarding looters and other violent criminals in  21SEP27-POST#3488 is a fact. If you wish to make a case that it is not a fact please make it when you respond to this post. No response means you agree this part of my post is a fact. 21SEP28-POST#3507


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Looters and other violent criminals that disrupt BLM peaceful protests are not associated with the organizers. 21SEP27-POST#3488
> 
> Correll wrote: That is your self serving opinion, and as such it is utterly worthless.
> 21SEP28-POST#3495
> ...




The movement and the organization are violent and racist. You support them because you are hateful and racist.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Sep 28, 2021)

Sigh,... human race is one. How is that many?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

NFBW wrote: My statement regarding looters and other violent criminals in 21SEP27-POST#3488 is a fact. If you wish to make a case that it is not a fact please make it when you respond to this post. 21SEP28-POST#3507

Correll wrote: The movement and the organization are violent and racist. 21SEP28-POST#3508

NFBW wrote: I knew when I challenged you in my 21SEP28-POST#3507 that you have no case, but Jesus H Christ why can’t you try to attempt making your case based on any kind of facts? If you had a case that organizers are guilty of inciting violence that rises to the level of the Jan6 riot and insurrection against American democracy then why for four years did DJT not bring charges against any BLM leaders? 21SEP28-POST#3510


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

NFBW wrote: Jan6 rioters were committing violence in order to “STOP THE STEAL” for DJT  21SEP27-POST#3488

Correll wrote: That is your self serving opinion, and as such it is utterly worthless. 
21SEP28-POST#3495

NFBW wrote: My statement regarding the Jan6 riot was to “Stop the Steal” for DJT In order to overturn the election in my 21SEP27-POST#3488 is a fact. If you wish to make a case that it is not a fact please make it when you respond to this post. No response means you agree this part of my post is a fact. 21SEP28-POST#3511


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: My statement regarding looters and other violent criminals in 21SEP27-POST#3488 is a fact. If you wish to make a case that it is not a fact please make it when you respond to this post. 21SEP28-POST#3507
> 
> Correll wrote: The movement and the organization are violent and racist. 21SEP28-POST#3508
> 
> NFBW wrote: I knew when I challenged you in my 21SEP28-POST#3507 that you have no case, but Jesus H Christ why can’t you try to attempt making your case based on any kind of facts? If you had a case that organizers are guilty of inciting violence that rises to the level of the Jan6 riot and insurrection against American democracy then why for four years did DJT not bring charges against any BLM leaders? 21SEP28-POST#3510




Because demanding links and support for obvious truths, is a common troll move. So, no.


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: Jan6 rioters were committing violence in order to “STOP THE STEAL” for DJT  21SEP27-POST#3488
> 
> Correll wrote: That is your self serving opinion, and as such it is utterly worthless.
> 21SEP28-POST#3495
> ...




Actually  you wrote a lot more than that, including some very divisive and hateful claims about what Trump said about "black voters" which I challenged you do support, and you did not support.


That was some serious context you lost there. YOu are so dishonest and such a bad faith debater.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

Correll wrote: Actually you wrote a lot more than that, including some very divisive and hateful claims about what Trump said about "black voters" which I challenged you do support, and you did not support. 21SEP28-POST#3513

NFBW wrote: Can someone send a message to another by an action rather than by words? For example if a man throws a hatchet at your head without saying a word, and misses, but the deadly hatchet nicks you on the ear, do you get the “message” that the man wanted to kill you? 21SEP28-POST#3514


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

NFBW wrote: My statement regarding looters and other violent criminals in 21SEP27-POST#3488 is a fact. If you wish to make a case that it is not a fact please make it when you respond to this post. 21SEP28-POST#3507

Correll wrote: The movement and the organization are violent and racist. 21SEP28-POST#3508

NFBW wrote: I knew when I challenged you in my 21SEP28-POST#3507 that you have no case, but Jesus H Christ why can’t you try to attempt making your case based on any kind of facts? If you had a case that organizers are guilty of inciting violence that rises to the level of the Jan6 riot and insurrection against American democracy then why for four years did DJT not bring charges against any BLM leaders? 21SEP28-POST#3510

Correll wrote: Because demanding links and support for obvious truths, is a common troll move. So, no. 21SEP28-POST#3512

NFBW wrote:  I didn't demand links. I asked you Correll  to make a case. You respond with a format issue. Make a case or admit you don’t have one. 21SEP28-POST#3515


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Actually you wrote a lot more than that, including some very divisive and hateful claims about what Trump said about "black voters" which I challenged you do support, and you did not support. 21SEP28-POST#3513
> 
> NFBW wrote: Can someone send a message to another by an action rather than by words? For example if a man throws a hatchet at your head without saying a word, and misses, but the deadly hatchet nicks you on the ear, do you get the “message” that the man wanted to kill you? 21SEP28-POST#3514




Of course. THough you have shown yourself to be a bad faith debater, so YOU can't be trusted to tell the truth about what you think.


Without the fucking partisan filler shit, post the action you think justifies your bullshit race baiting. 


TWO SENTENCES. Anymore, I will just stop reading there and address the shit you said so far.


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: My statement regarding looters and other violent criminals in 21SEP27-POST#3488 is a fact. If you wish to make a case that it is not a fact please make it when you respond to this post. 21SEP28-POST#3507
> 
> Correll wrote: The movement and the organization are violent and racist. 21SEP28-POST#3508
> 
> ...




I already made the case.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

NFBW wrote: If you wish to make a case that it is not a fact please make it when you respond to this post. 21SEP28-POST#3507

Correll wrote: Because demanding links and support for obvious truths, is a common troll move. So, no. 21SEP28-POST#3512

NFBW wrote: If you can ask me to back something up as you did in your 21SEP26-POST#659, why cant I ask you to make a case for something? 21SEP28-POST#3518

Correll wrote: Back up that shit or admit that you are just a mindless spam bot. 21SEP26-POST#659


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> already made the case.



Where? What post? You are a liar. Prove me wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

Correll said:


> I already made the case



NFBW 21SEP28-POST#3520 wrote: You are a liar. You said “no” you would not make a case in your 21SEP28-POST#3512 as shown below; 

Correll wrote: Because demanding links and support for obvious truths, is a common troll move. So, no. 21SEP28-POST#3512

NFBW wrote: So which is it? 21SEP28-POST#3520


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: If you wish to make a case that it is not a fact please make it when you respond to this post. 21SEP28-POST#3507
> 
> Correll wrote: Because demanding links and support for obvious truths, is a common troll move. So, no. 21SEP28-POST#3512
> 
> ...




Because  you have proven yourself to be a bad faith actor, and a race baiting troll, and I have demonstrated the opposite behavior.


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Where? What post? You are a liar. Prove me wrong.




You love going over old posts. Go look yourself.


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW 21SEP28-POST#3520 wrote: You are a liar. You said “no” you would not make a case in your 21SEP28-POST#3512 as shown below;
> 
> Correll wrote: Because demanding links and support for obvious truths, is a common troll move. So, no. 21SEP28-POST#3512
> 
> NFBW wrote: So which is it? 21SEP28-POST#3520




Probably two different questions, that you took the answers out of context to compare misleadingly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

Correll wrote: You love going over old posts. Go look yourself.  21SEP28-POST#3522

NFBW wrote: I have over and over again. You have not tried to make your case. It is nowhere to be found? If you made it, prove me wrong? 21SEP28-POST#3524


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

Correll wrote: Probably two different questions, that you took the answers out of context to compare misleadingly. 21SEP28-POST#3523

NFBW wrote: Probably? Don’t you know? 21SEP28-POST#3525


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Probably two different questions, that you took the answers out of context to compare misleadingly. 21SEP28-POST#3523
> 
> NFBW wrote: Probably? Don’t you know? 21SEP28-POST#3525




Can't be bothered to look. You are not worth the effort.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 28, 2021)

Correll wrote: The 1/6 riot was an ACTUAL ISOLATED INCIDENT 21SEP28-POST#3495

NFBW wrote: Of course it was. In order to produce a Jan6 riot you needed each of these conditions. A first term president who loses his campaign to serve a second term. The sitting president must have his political party in control of the House and Senate when he loses the election. The beaten president must lose the electoral college votes in enough swing states that have his party in control if it’s states legislatures. All the above are necessary to give the specific Jan6 date a reason to have the loser president lead some of his supporters to believe that stopping the certification of the state’s  electors on that date would give the loser president the ability to lose an election but remain in office. These conditions have been ripe only once in all of America’s history and the riot that DJT’s Jan6 brought about is a Republican riot. The Democratic Party has never had a riot on Jan6 or came close to scheming to keep a loser president in office either under thise conditions or to have a Dem first term President lie like DJT lie in order to stay in power in some other scenario. 21SEP28-POST#3527


----------



## Correll (Sep 28, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: The 1/6 riot was an ACTUAL ISOLATED INCIDENT 21SEP28-POST#3495
> 
> NFBW wrote: Of course it was. In order to produce a Jan6 riot you needed each of these conditions. A first term president who loses his campaign to serve a second term. The sitting president must have his political party in control of the House and Senate when he loses the election. The beaten president must lose the electoral college votes in enough swing states that have his party in control if it’s states legislatures. All the above are necessary to give the specific Jan6 date a reason to have the loser president lead some of his supporters to believe that stopping the certification of the states electors on that date would give the loser president the ability to lose an election but remain in office. These conditions have been ripe only once in all of America’s history and the riot that DJT’s Jan6 brought about is a Republican riot. Them Democratic Oarty has never had a riot or came close to the under thise conditions or to have a Dem first term President lie like DJT in order to stay in power. 21SEP28-POST#3527




Or, to look at it another way, what you needed was 4 years of leftard riots, with the support of the dem party and liberals, to normalize the idea of rioting. 

BUT, looking at it that way, doesn't serve your goal of demonizing your enemies, so you will... insist that is not valid for some made up bullshit reason.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 29, 2021)

NFBW wrote: The violence at any BLM peaceful protest is disruptive and devastates the message that the organizers want to convey. 21SEP27-POST#3488

Correll wrote: the HUNDREDS OF LEFTY RIOTS, are a PATTERN, in "harmony and support" of the BLM  21SEP28-POST#3528

NFBW wrote: you have acknowledged in a Post on record below that you know that “some of the riots might have been truly spontaneous events without any input from blm” plus you have readily admitted that you “ have no way of knowing if the riots were truly spontaneous or not.” 21SEP29-POST#3529

Correll wrote: I acknowledge the possibility that some of the riots might have been truly spontaneous events without any input from blm. 21MAR07-POST-#1002

Correll wrote: I have no way of knowing if the riots were truly spontaneous or not. Even if they were spontaneous, they were done, imo, by people who did so IN SUPPORT of the BLM movement and message. 21SEP28-POST#3498 

NFBW wrote: If I could ever get you to conform with a reality based recognition of the use of language for the purposes of communicating factually observed truth about things you would cease and desist making the claim that “  the HUNDREDS OF LEFTY RIOTS, are a PATTERN, in "harmony and support" of the BLM” because you have confessed that you cannot know if that is true. You are at a dead end in your false argument that Democrats and liberals and BLM organizers support or condone riots and political and racial violence. I KNOW they don’t because rioting destroys the anti-white supremacy message by turning normal white Americans away from the idea that black lives should matter equal to white lives. 21SEP29-POST#3529


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 29, 2021)

Correll wrote: The 1/6 riot Correll wrote: The 1/6 riot was an ACTUAL ISOLATED INCIDENT 21SEP28-POST#3495

NFBW wrote: Of course it was. In order to produce a Jan6 riot you needed each of these conditions. A first term president who loses his campaign to serve a second term. The sitting president must have his political party in control of the House and Senate when he loses the election. The beaten president must lose the electoral college votes in enough swing states that have his party in control of it’s states legislatures. All the above are necessary to give the specific Jan6 date a reason to have the loser president lead some of his supporters to believe that stopping the certification of the state’s electors on that date would give the loser president the ability to lose an election but remain in office. 21SEP28-POST#3527

Correll wrote: Or, to look at it another way, what you needed was 4 years of leftard riots, with the support of the dem party and liberals, to normalize the idea of rioting. 21SEP28-POST#3528

NFBW wrote: In order to produce a Jan6 riot you needed each of the conditions I listed in my 21SEP28-POST#3527 copied above. Correll ‘s reply is that I needed 4 years of riots to normalize the idea of rioting. Correll ‘s reply is absurd, I know, but if it was not absurd what would be the point anyway? The discussion is about the unique, once in the history of human civilization that could produce a Jan6 riot . A riot that had the intent, following DJT’s lead, for him to stay in power after losing the election. 21SEP29-POST#3530


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Sep 29, 2021)

NFBW wrote: No! I am quoting the orange goon directly as my source as the basis of that fact. And there are dozens of quotes By the insurrectionists themselves that they were following DJT’s orders. 21SEP27-POST#3490

“”” "Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President….” DJT-21May15 INSURRECTION “””

Correll wrote: Show me the quote of Trump saying that, …21SEP28-POST#3497

Correll wrote: Actually you wrote a lot more than that, including some very divisive and hateful claims about what Trump said about "black voters" which I challenged you do support, and you did not support. 21SEP28-POST#3513

NFBW wrote: Can someone send a message to another by an action rather than by words? 21SEP28-POST#3514

Correll wrote: Of course. 21SEP28-POST#3516

NFBW wrote: I was referring to DJT saying  “Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President….”. That is where DJT defines the “Action” that the Jan6 rally and riot were supposed to create. THE CONTINUATION OF DJT IN OFFICE DESPITE LOSING IN A LANDSLIDE TO BIDEN. 21SEP29-POST#3531

NFBW wrote: Are you with me so far Correll ? The quote defines the action. 21SEP29-POST#3531

NFBW wrote: What would have happened if Pence had the ‘courage’ to keep his white evangelical Christian nose up DJT’s fascist wannabee ass? 21SEP29-POST#3531

NFBW wrote: Correll won’t answer, so I will. If Pence followed DJT orders - he rejects the Biden electors in seven states where DJT lost because those states have large cities with enough voters to overwhelm the rural voters. In general the large cities are heavily populated by black Americans who voted for Biden. The action that rejects Biden certified electors and replaces them with fraudulent Trump electors produce the result of canceling millions of black votes based on a lie. So when I wrote…..
“ The violence on Jan6 was in harmony and support of DJT’s message to fight and save America from all those black places were voter fraud runs rampant. That DJT message was taken to heart by the right wing white evangelical Christian nationalists and white supremacy types fully intent on canceling black votes in major cities. “………….I was referring to DJT’s specific message and the resultant action that defines the result of the fascistic and racist action he wanted Pence and the Republicans in Congress to do for him. 21SEP29-POST#3531


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Oct 1, 2021)

Correll wrote: Or, to look at it another way, what you needed was 4 years of leftard riots, with the support of the dem party and liberals, to normalize the idea of rioting. 21SEP28-POST#3528

NFBW wrote: Or, to look at it another way, what you need is one political rally and a CAPITOL invasion at the White House and CAPITOL for a sitting DEM one term president who refuses to admit that he lost the election and who wants to stir confusion and distrust in the election process and who has a plan and scheme to stay in office despite losing in order to normalize a process that a first term Dem ticket President and VP get to serve 8 years even if the second four are against the will of the voters. 21OCT01-POST#3532


----------



## Correll (Oct 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: The violence at any BLM peaceful protest is disruptive and devastates the message that the organizers want to convey. 21SEP27-POST#3488
> 
> Correll wrote: the HUNDREDS OF LEFTY RIOTS, are a PATTERN, in "harmony and support" of the BLM  21SEP28-POST#3528
> 
> ...




It is clear from my posts that I was "not sure" about if they riots were "spontaneous or not".


You took that admission, because you are a bad faith debater, and conflated it with the point about whether or not the riots were "in support of the blm movement".


Also, YOU might think that the rioting destroys the "anti-w.s." message, but that does not mean that the rioters, often very stupid and hatefilled people, agree with you on that. 


That you assume that a violent thug, is going to have your EXACT thinking on an issue, is another example of how INSANELY CLOSED YOUR MIND IS.



There is a lot more wrong with your statement, but, I have found that the more info I put in a post, the less chance that you can keep it straight. So, I will leave it there.


----------



## Correll (Oct 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: No! I am quoting the orange goon




Stopped reading here. You want to just spam your bullshit, I'm not always going to play.


----------



## Correll (Oct 3, 2021)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Or, to look at it another way, what you needed was 4 years of leftard riots, with the support of the dem party and liberals, to normalize the idea of rioting. 21SEP28-POST#3528
> 
> NFBW wrote: Or, to look at it another way, what you need is one political rally and a CAPITOL invasion at the White House and CAPITOL for a sitting DEM one term president who refuses to admit that he lost the election and who wants to stir confusion and distrust in the election process and who has a plan and scheme to stay in office despite losing in order to normalize a process that a first term Dem ticket President and VP get to serve 8 years even if the second four are against the will of the voters. 21OCT01-POST#3532




My point was that the years of lefty riots, made political violence the new norm.


Your response did not address that.


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 3, 2021)

C'mon man
Iraq, Korea , Afghaniland, Vietnam ,Somalia, Japan,ummmm'
They've all been rendered irrelevant due to to the freedumb deliveries over the decades. 
I suppose you don't watch news.
Iran needs a dose at the current time.
I hear they have flowers


----------



## PinktheFloyd88 (Oct 21, 2021)

No, and I really dislike Bush for starting it.


----------



## surada (Oct 28, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> Meh, Dems repeated voted to fund the war so own it.



Cheney went to the pentagon every day. They were cherry picking the intel.. Read Clean Break Strategy from 1996.. Then look at the British Operation Mass Appeal in 1998 to sell the war.


----------



## Correll (Oct 29, 2021)

surada said:


> Cheney went to the pentagon every day. They were cherry picking the intel.. Read Clean Break Strategy from 1996.. Then look at the British Operation Mass Appeal in 1998 to sell the war.




The fact that other people supported war as a policy, does not mean anything. YOu are not saying anything.


----------



## surada (Oct 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> The fact that other people supported war as a policy, does not mean anything. YOu are not saying anything.



I wrote dozens of letters to government people before the invasion and resigned the Republican party after 35 years. Didn't you know it would be an unmitigated disaster?


----------



## Correll (Oct 29, 2021)

surada said:


> I wrote dozens of letters to government people before the invasion and resigned the Republican party after 35 years. Didn't you know it would be an unmitigated disaster?




So, you dropping that big point of yours, about other people supporting the war? 

Or are you just changing the subject so you don't have to deal with the fact that your "point" was nothing but shit. 


That was  a rhetorical question. 


The fact that you don't even try to defend your points when called on them? That shows that you know that htey are shit points.


----------



## surada (Oct 29, 2021)

Correll said:


> So, you dropping that big point of yours, about other people supporting the war?
> 
> Or are you just changing the subject so you don't have to deal with the fact that your "point" was nothing but shit.
> 
> ...



I know Iraq and the neighbors. .. and I know the oil business. Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions. Saddam was NOT a threat to the US or his neighbors.

No diplomats, historians, oil men, Arabs or expats supported the invasion.

You think an occupation force of 100,000  for a city of 5 million works? Look at Berlin after the war..


----------



## Correll (Oct 29, 2021)

surada said:


> I know Iraq and the neighbors. .. and I know the oil business. Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions. Saddam was NOT a threat to the US or his neighbors.
> 
> No diplomats, historians, oil men, Arabs or expats supported the invasion.
> 
> You think an occupation force of 100,000  for a city of 5 million works? Look at Berlin after the war..




And he still makes no attempt to explain how his post about "THE JEWS" was anything more than, "look, other people supported the war too" as though that means something. 

Like many  liberals, you think that if you structure a sentence as though it is a "point" that that means that what you said is a "point".


That is not the way it works.



You made the "point" that other people supported the war too.


SO THE FUCK WHAT?


For that to be relevant, you would have to show, at least, that they had UNDUE INFLUENCE on our decision making process.


Which, you have not even TRIED to do.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You own being an idiot. You are stupid.
> 
> Do you support what W did? Trump says W lied us into war.  I can’t own what a President lied about to make it happen.
> 
> I paid to give our troops a chance to fix what lyin li’l Dubya broke. We had no choice because real terrorists came from outside Iraq due to the vacuum that W created. it was a mess. I opposed going in? Did you?



Saud Al Faisel.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

We had no choice because real terrorists came from outside Iraq due to the vacuum that W created.  

could someone explain   "real terrorists came from 
outside"      and  "the vacuum that W created"????


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> We had no choice because real terrorists came from outside Iraq due to the vacuum that W created.
> 
> could someone explain   "real terrorists came from
> outside"      and  "the vacuum that W created"????


He's talking about ISIS.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> He's talking about ISIS.


   oh----ok ---so he makes no sense.   ISIS was not 
   the reason that the USA opposed Saddam Hussein 
   (nor were atom bombs or Bin Laden, ---nor did  
    Bush CLAIM they were)


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> oh----ok ---so he makes no sense.   ISIS was not
> the reason that the USA opposed Saddam Hussein
> (nor were atom bombs or Bin Laden, ---nor did
> Bush CLAIM they were)


ISIS came out of Camp Bucca prison in 2004.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 5, 2022)

The perverted diversion of American power inflicted by Bush and his cronies will live on to blacken the future of America.


----------



## Stann (Jun 5, 2022)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You own being an idiot. You are stupid.
> 
> Do you support what W did? Trump says W lied us into war.  I can’t own what a President lied about to make it happen.
> 
> I paid to give our troops a chance to fix what lyin li’l Dubya broke. We had no choice because real terrorists came from outside Iraq due to the vacuum that W created. it was a mess. I opposed going in? Did you?


I agree with Bush's father, the elder Bush, he told him not to go into Iraq, that we would end up owning it and it wouldn't be worth it. Up to that point most terrorist activity was well monitored. After the invasion of Iraq terrorism grew exponentially and went underground which made things a hundred times worse. Bush solved nothing, he created a monster that's threatens the entire world.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> ISIS came out of Camp Bucca prison in 2004.


  ROFLMAO -----amongst my many  informants there have been PRISON GUARDS------in fact,  in periods of time long before 2004.     The FACT IS-----ISIS did come out of prisons-----ISIS WENT IN AND ISIS WENT 
OUT ------in both the USA and in GREAT BRITAIN.  
Prisons anywhere in which muslims intermingle and 
even mingle with other criminals are breeding 
grounds for  ISIS


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> ROFLMAO -----amongst my many  informants there have been PRISON GUARDS------in fact,  in periods of time long before 2004.     The FACT IS-----ISIS did come out of prisons-----ISIS WENT IN AND ISIS WENT
> OUT ------in both the USA and in GREAT BRITAIN.
> Prisons anywhere in which muslims intermingle and
> even mingle with other criminals are breeding
> grounds for  ISIS


Yep. It was a finishing school for terrorists.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> Yep. It was a finishing school for terrorists.


   right----any prison in which muslims intermingle 
is a breeding ground for terrorists-----anywhere in 
the world amongst other breeding grounds for 
terrorism like mosques and shariah adherent cesspit 
"countries"  ----many examples----like Somalia and 
North Sudan and Nigeria.    As far as I know---neither the mass murderers  Saddam Hussein or Osama 
bin Laden were ever in prison  (??)    It is true that the 
islamic hero Adolf Hitler was in Prison giving him 
time to develope his FAITH


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> right----any prison in which muslims intermingle
> is a breeding ground for terrorists-----anywhere in
> the world amongst other breeding grounds for
> terrorism like mosques and shariah adherent cesspit
> ...


You may find this interesting.









						Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> You may find this interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


   of course it is interesting-----divestment of weapons of specific groups is, itself, a  GROSS WEAPON OF OPPRESSION.    Such oppression is found ---historically, in Sparta Greece---against the enslaved caste---the "helots"    It was repeated in the laws conceived by Constantine of the 'holey' roman empire and incorporated into the Canon Law of the catholic church and it REMAINS PROMINENT in the FILTH OF SHARIAH LAW upon the "dhimmis"   The 
islamic hero,  did not INVENT IT


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> of course it is interesting-----divestment of weapons of specific groups is, itself, a  GROSS WEAPON OF OPPRESSION.    Such oppression is found ---historically, in Sparta Greece---against the enslaved caste---the "helots"    It was repeated in the laws conceived by Constantine of the 'holey' roman empire and incorporated into the Canon Law of the catholic church and it REMAINS PROMINENT in the FILTH OF SHARIAH LAW upon the "dhimmis"   The
> islamic hero,  did not INVENT IT


All the Arab states signed on with the Allies by 1939. They expelled German envoys a few years earlier.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> All the Arab states signed on with the Allies by 1939. They expelled German envoys a few years earlier.


  right----when they were vassal states of the allies 
except those that were vassal states of AXIS 
POWERS-----like Libya and Tunisia


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

Correll said:


> So, you dropping that big point of yours, about other people supporting the war?
> 
> Or are you just changing the subject so you don't have to deal with the fact that your "point" was nothing but shit.
> 
> ...


   Leave her alone ----she fought bravely for the life and agenda of the islamic hero  Saddam Hussein


----------



## gtopa1 (Jun 6, 2022)

I am seriously wondering why so many Saddam apologists forget that the war started when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Of course NO ME nation felt safe after that. They weren't. 

That W went in in 2003 was a consequence of the FAILED strategy of "wishing" that the Iraqis would depose the tyrant. The mistake there is obvious, but if it needs spelling out then leaving the apparatus of a terror state in place ended in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead Iraqis. Methinks Clinton dropped the ball when he COULD have stopped it but he didn't. By the time W came along Saddam had eliminated virtually all opposition that could have taken the next step. Iraq was a hard lesson but it has still some time to play out. With Biden now Pres I expect it to flare up again. 

Greg


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 6, 2022)

America's Iraq debacle was unsound policy inflicted by unsound minds.


----------



## Stann (Jun 6, 2022)

gtopa1 said:


> I am seriously wondering why so many Saddam apologists forget that the war started when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Of course NO ME nation felt safe after that. They weren't.
> 
> That W went in in 2003 was a consequence of the FAILED strategy of "wishing" that the Iraqis would depose the tyrant. The mistake there is obvious, but if it needs spelling out then leaving the apparatus of a terror state in place ended in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead Iraqis. Methinks Clinton dropped the ball when he COULD have stopped it but he didn't. By the time W came along Saddam had eliminated virtually all opposition that could have taken the next step. Iraq was a hard lesson but it has still some time to play out. With Biden now Pres I expect it to flare up again.
> 
> Greg


Iraq has always been a troubled Nation since it's founding in 1958. The British along with the French, carved it out of the Middle Eastern provinces and allowed it to become independent. Unfortunately, there would have been better off divided into three countries. A Kurdish nation in the North, Sunnis in the West, and Shias in the South. They are all basically warring tribes that don't get along. The only reason it's stayed together so long as one country is because they had a powerful autocrat in charge. Saddam was in charge for 24 years. No one seemed to care that he was worthless and barbaric to his own people, enforcemented like all autocrats he eventually went psychotic and invaded another country seeking even more power and influence in the area. Then his notoriety finally was noticed and dealt with. George HW Bush did the right thing by not going into the country, but he should have insisted on a regime change to his liking. Then the worst of what was to come could have been avoided. Given the mix, that would be very optimistic at best. I don't believe there is a workable solution for Iraq in its present state.


----------

