Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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.

See post 3010, where I most recently answered that question for you.


Nothing has changed since then.

 

[Correll]

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]

Why can’t you go on the record with an answer to the question?

I have repeatedly.

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.

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]

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]

That is one of Correll ‘s most foolish ideas.

So I asked:


As usual Correll cannot answer questions:


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.



That is why Correll should have listened to Biden instead of Cheney.

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]

NotfooledbyW , do you believe that I honestly and in good faith, wanted a good outcome for the people of Iraq?

 

[Correll]

NotfooledbyW , going into the war, even though you disagreed with it, what was you HOPE, for the outcome?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

@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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

NotfooledbyW


Ask me what I hoped for.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.