Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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. ...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.