Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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.

Did they verify the destruction of the wmds, after the fact?

 

[Correll]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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. ...

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]

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. ...

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. ...

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.

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".

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]

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!

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]

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. ....

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]

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. ...

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.

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".

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

"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]

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?

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]

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]

"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]

That sickening feeling Correll may never feel.

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."