Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

these lying jackasses

oh pUUUlleese.......~S~

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.
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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.