Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

Saddam didn't attack his neighbors? Are you literally insane?

 

[Correll]

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.





Coming from a documented liar that’s too funny to let slide.

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]

You said exactly that in direct response to my question:





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.

Dude. You are just playing word games now. You lose. You are a loser. YOu look absurd.

 

[Correll]

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.

So Biden supported the war for different reasons than me. Seriously, wtf do you think that proves?

 

[Correll]

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]

"very easily observable reality"

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]

"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 hiw 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.

Tell us why you are such a time wasting fool to have come up with that?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I support killing muslims. The world is a better place without Islam.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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]

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

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?