Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

But was the case for going into World War One a contrary observation to that?

Yes. As explained. You stonewalling lunatic.

 

[Correll]

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



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?

It was not easily observable. You made assumptions and present them and your opinions as "Fact" and build your arguments on that.


Your assumption that the inspectors were operating in good faith, is not supported by ANYTHING.

Your conclusion that there were no wmds, is based on HINDSIGHT.

You do shit like that, and then act like NOT doing it, is being the weird one.


You are insane.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your assumption that the inspectors were operating in good faith, is not supported by ANYTHING.

The observable fact being discussed is not based upon the attitude of the inspectors. This discussion at this point is about SH’s behavior. SH was cooperating for several months. That was an indisputable observable fact. As early as December 2002 SH made a public offer to let the CIA and US military come into IRAQ to assist the inspectors to find WMD. It was reported on Fox News and every other news media outlet in the world. It was an offer to cooperate and you cannot deny it. There are no assumptions involved.

Read this again:

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

Are you still saying that the decision to invade a peaceful nation at the time should be based on a belief that is in opposition to observable reality?

Why are you arguing against my post #3080?

You really cannot deny observable reality unless you are mentally unfit to observe it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes. As explained

Where? in what Post number?

 

[Correll]

The observable fact being discussed is not based upon the attitude of the inspectors. This discussion at this point is about SH’s behavior. SH was cooperating for several months. That was an indisputable observable fact. As early as December 2002 SH made a public offer to let the CIA and US military come into IRAQ to assist the inspectors to find WMD. It was reported on Fox News and every other news media outlet in the world. It was an offer to cooperate and you cannot deny it. There are no assumptions involved.
......

At that time, the only proof I would have found convincing of his cooperation would have been him turning over his stockpile of wmds.


A "public offer" of cooperation, is nothing but words. They do not prove that the cooperation is actually happening.

Your attempt to present it as though it does, is you being either insane, or insanely dishonest.


That you attack me, because I did not trust Saddam FUCKING Hussein, is you being as asshole.

 

[Correll]

Where? in what Post number?

Don't recall. But I did already explain it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It was not easily observable.

Why was it easily enough observable for you to declare that SH did not it walk softly and poked the bear after 1441 was passed.

Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.

You must have watched something leading you to such a conclusion or you just made it up.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But I did already explain it.

That was not the requirement of 1441. He was required to cooperate. That’s it.

And that is not what I asked you.

Here read it again:

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

I did not ask for your warmongering limited definition of what cooperation meant in 1441.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A "public offer" of cooperation, is nothing but words. They do not prove that the cooperation is actually happening.

“Intent” at the time was crucial.

It is proof that it was the intent of Iraq to cooperate whatever it takes and that put the ball in the US court to take up the offer and test the genuineness of the offer.

Its more than words and it is a very observable fact that simultaneous with the offer the cooperation with the inspectors was started and never regressed.

 

[Correll]

Why was it easily enough observable for you to declare that SH did not it walk softly and poked the bear after 1441 was passed.



You must have watched something leading you to such a conclusion or you just made it up.

Why did you just change the subject? We were talking about your CLAIM, that you pretend is "fact", even "easily observable fact" that Saddam was co-operating with un inspectors,


and suddenly, you completely changed the subject?


How very odd. It is almost as though when pressed, you realized that your position was absurd.



My point stands.


I believed that if Saddam were to be truly co-operating in good faith, that the proof would be seen in a large stash of WMDs, being turned over to UN inspectors.


Barring that, I was not open to claims that he was "co-operating:.


Now, it would be reasonable for you to make an argument that my position was in error.


What is NOT reasonable is for you to DENY that my position of the time was....


seriously, what are you even trying to do here?


It seems that you are trying to get me to admit that my motive was simply to see Muslims killed for the EVUL LUFZ, or some such nonsense.


Instead of my stated and quite reasonable motives and goals.

 

[Correll]

That was not the requirement of 1441. He was required to cooperate. That’s it.

And that is not what I asked you.

Here read it again:

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

I did not ask for your warmongering limited definition of what cooperation meant in 1441.

WTF are you even asking me? WTF is your point?


ALL you seem to be doing, is harping on the fact that you believed the UN inspectors and I didn't.


SO? It sort of feels like you think you are making some kind of point. But you aren't.

 

[Correll]

“Intent” at the time was crucial.

It is proof that it was the intent of Iraq to cooperate whatever it takes and that put the ball in the US court to take up the offer and test the genuineness of the offer.

Its more than words and it is a very observable fact that simultaneous with the offer the cooperation with the inspectors was started and never regressed.

Funny. YOu accept the stated words of Saddam Hussein, a brutal, genocidal dictator, as to his intent, but you don't trust mine.

Which is your prerogative of course.


But I, I did not trust Saddam Hussein's word.


You claim the "proof" of his good intentions were easily observable.


Well, I, and many others, did not see it that way.


Funny, how so many people are distrustful of mass murdering, genocidal, brutal, totalitarian dictators.


While you, find them so trustworthy.


Is it your principle that genocidal mass murderers should be assumed to be telling the Truth, barring strong evidence to the contrary?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

YOu accept the stated words of Saddam Hussein, a brutal, genocidal dictator, as to his intent, but you don't trust mine.

No. You are a liar when you say I accept SH intent, but don’t trust you.

You have nothing to say about the offer. There’s nothing to trust coming from you.

You cannot bring evidence to this discussion that the offer was not real or genuine.

I didn’t try to tell you the intent was genuine. I can tell you that it was made.

*** Saddam Extends Invite to CIA
By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

I accept that the specific offer in December 2002 showed intent to cooperate by the Iraq regime.

This is a fact. It happened in history. It took place during the ramp up to the war. I did not making a conclusion at the time whether it was genuine or not. I did not have to do that. I am merely stating the fact that it happened shows that there was a clear demonstration that there was “intent” to cooperate.

If they made the offer and the US sent some experts in and then they said they were just kidding then the intent was not there. But they were not tested. So the intent to cooperate must stand and because the action of cooperating with the inspectors was an easily observable fact.

And that fact cannot be denied by the US or by you decision was made not to follow up on the offer. SH could do no more to show his intent was to cooperate directly with the United States out the middleman.

An offer to cooperate was a very observable fact that you cannot sanely deny.

 

[Correll]

No. You are a liar when you say I accept SH intent, but don’t trust you.

You have nothing to say about the offer. There’s nothing to trust coming from you.

You cannot bring evidence to this discussion that the offer was not real or genuine.

I didn’t try to tell you the intent was genuine. I can tell you that it was made.

*** Saddam Extends Invite to CIA
By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

I accept that the specific offer in December 2002 showed intent to cooperate by the Iraq regime.

This is a fact. It happened in history. It took place during the ramp up to the war. I did not making a conclusion at the time whether it was genuine or not. I did not have to do that. I am merely stating the fact that it happened shows that there was a clear demonstration that there was “intent” to cooperate.

If they made the offer and the US sent some experts in and then they said they were just kidding then the intent was not there. But they were not tested. So the intent to cooperate must stand and because the action of cooperating with the inspectors was an easily observable fact.

And that fact cannot be denied by the US or by you decision was made not to follow up on the offer. SH could do no more to show his intent was to cooperate directly with the United States out the middleman.

An offer to cooperate was a very observable fact that you cannot sanely deny.

"offer" equals words. The action I was looking for, was for him to just turn over his wmds. That would have been true co-operation.


Why are you pretending to not get this?


Do you feel that constantly spamming your talking points in a public forum is, in your own little way, spreading hate and division?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But I, I did not trust Saddam Hussein's word.

What is there that requires trust on your part.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA
By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

If the offer was real and W’s claim that he wanted to disarm peacefully were true then he gives the CIA a chance to get on the ground in Iraq and prove out they evidence they had.

If the offer was not real and the agents are blocked / the case for war is even stronger.

Its not a matter of trusting SH word at all.

You don’t trust it so you test it.

 

[Correll]

What is there that requires trust on your part.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA
By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

If the offer was real and W’s claim that he wanted to disarm peacefully were true then he gives the CIA a chance to get on the ground in Iraq and prove out they evidence they had.

If the offer was not real and the agents are blocked / the case for war is even stronger.

Its not a matter of trusting SH word at all.

You don’t trust it so you test it.

Iraq is the size of TEXAS. If Saddam was serious about cooperating, he could have just led the agents to the WMDs, and gave them trucks to cart them out of the country.


What part of this is too hard for you to understand?


Being on the ground, DOESN'T MEAN FUCK.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"offer" equals words. The action I was looking for, was for him to just turn over his wmds. That would have been true co-operation.

I did not ask you what action by SH you were looking for. We are talking about the cooperation that W requested the UN to look for..

Are you ever going explain why you reject this statement?

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

Why start a war based on the belief that is based on the opposite of easily observable reality?

There were no observable reports at the time by any news organization showing that SH was not cooperating. Not cooperating such as blocking inspectors from entering a palace or factory or warehouse. All observance in the news media was that SH was cooperating.

No one on earth gave a flying fuck what you were looking for. Who do you think you are. Just read 1441 and watch Fox NEWS

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Being on the ground, DOESN'T MEAN FUCK.

Based on what?

 

[Correll]

I did not ask you what action by SH you were looking for. We are talking about the cooperation that W requested the UN to look for..

Are you ever going explain why you reject this statement?

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

Why start a war based on the belief that based on the opposite of easily observable reality?

There were no observable reports at the time by any news organization showing that SH was not cooperating. Such as blocking inspectors from entering a Palace or factory or warehouse. All observance in the news media was that SH was cooperating.

No one on earth gave a flying fuck what you were looking for. Who do you think you are. Just read 1441 and watch Fox NEWS

People disagree about "easily observable reality" all the time.

When you pretend to not know that, you make yourself look like a liar.



That you find it obvious, does not translate to other people.

 

[Correll]

Based on what?

Based on what I said. That you cut. Why are you being like this?