Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

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?

You are a liar. I did not change the subject.

You wrote:

It was not easily observable.

So I want you on record as to why somehow it was easily observable after 1441 for you to say that SH was not cooperating.

NFBW wrote: Why was it easily enough observable for you to declare that SH did not walk softly and poked the bear after 1441 was passed? POST #3147.

So instead of the diversion and bitching and moaning, what did you ‘observe’ on the public record that SH was not cooperating?

 

[Correll]

You are a liar. I did not change the subject.

You wrote:

So I want you on record as to why somehow it was easily observable after 1441 for you to say that SH was not cooperating.

NFBW wrote: Why was it easily enough observable for you to declare that SH did not walk softly and poked the bear after 1441 was passed? POST #3147.

So instead of the diversion and bitching and moaning, what did you ‘observe’ on the public record that SH was not cooperating?

The lack of him turning in his stockpile of WMDs.


As I have said repeatedly.

Is there a number of times I have to repeat it, at which you will stop pretending to not know what my answer is?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Your are not being asked if you were open to claims that Iraq was cooperating. We know you only are open to claims made by the warmongers that turned out not to be true.

Here is the point you are dodging:

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

Its not about believing or trusting ‘claims’ that Iraq was cooperating, It’s about the easily observable news stories at the time that Iraq was cooperating in accordance with 1441. We all could observe the news if we wanted to.

W and whoever was involved with the intelligence became the only one’s to know that the appearance that Iraq was cooperating was wrong because:

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The ‘claims’ that WMD was being hidden based on top secret intelligence gathering that was not shared with inspectors makes the claim that Iraq is not ‘really’ cooperating a very limited knowledge to very few. The easily observable fact that SH was outwardly cooperating meant nothing when W told the world that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors.

That intelligence was wrong or W was lying that he had it.

But Iraq was ‘cooperating’ because the bs about him hiding something was wrong.

It seems that you are trying to get me to admit that my motive was simply to see Muslims killed

I don’t care what your motives are to ignore reality and facts. I’m just pointing out that you do it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The lack of him turning in his stockpile of WMDs.

SH was not required to turn over a stockpile of WMD under 1441 because it was not known under 1441 that he actually had them.

It is a simple concept. I cannot do much to help a stupid human want to grasp it.

So bitch and moan that repetition has set in but it is only so because you are so stupid you can’t get it.

This is one of your stupidest arguments.

I really don’t mind you repeatedly making a fool of yourself.

 

[Correll]

.Your are not being asked if you were open to claims that Iraq was cooperating. We know you only are open to claims made by the warmongers that turned out not to be true.

Here is the point you are dodging:

I'm not dodging anything. I am answering your question directly and clearly. You are the one dodging.

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

This portion of your post is nothing but spin. Retarded spin. Iraq was not a "peaceful nation". Your talk of "easily observable reality" is just you stating your position with confidence. Nothing more.

Its not about believing or trusting ‘claims’ that Iraq was cooperating, It’s about the easily observable news stories at the time that Iraq was cooperating in accordance with 1441. We all could observe the news if we wanted to do.

YOu state it is nnot about believing or trusting claims, and then insist that I believe your claims.

W and whoever was involved with the intelligence became the only one’s to know that the appearance that Iraq was cooperating was wrong because:

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The ‘claims’ that WMD was being hidden based on top secret intelligence gathering that was not shared with inspectors makes the claim that Iraq is not ‘really’ cooperating a very limited knowledge to very few. The easily observable fact that SH was outwardly cooperating meant nothing when W told the world that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors.

OR, Bush looked at the intelligence and came to an erroneous conclusion.

When you pretend to not understand that as a possibility, you are pretending to be utterly and profoundly stupid.

That intelligence was wrong or W was lying that he had it.

But Iraq was ‘cooperating’ because the bs about him hiding something was wrong.

OR, the President looked at the intelligence and saw what he expected to see. As is normal for people. As you have been doing, far WORSE than Bush did.


Bush at least was able to admit to being wrong, upon new information.


You stonewall to Death.

 

[Correll]

SH was not required to turn over a stockpile of WMD under 1441 because it was not known under 1441 that he actually had them.

It is a simple concept. I cannot do much to help a stupid human want to grasp it.

So bitch and moan that repetition has set in but it is only so because you are so stupid you can’t get it.

Thus is one of your stupidest arguments.

I really don’t mind you repeatedly making a fool of yourself.

You asked what I wanted. Not what the bill required.


That you pretend to not understand that, is you just stonewalling.

My point stands. If Saddam had wmds, he could turn them over whenever he wanted.

Barring that any talk of him "co-operating" was bullshit to be dismissed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

My point stands. If Saddam had wmds, he could turn them over whenever he wanted.

Do you realize how stupid your statement is?

“IF” he did not have WMDs he could not turn them over whenever he wanted.

1441 required he provide a listing of what he had. He did that.

He did not have anything of any significance. We did not find anything of any significance.


it is the epitome of ignorance when you say that SH was not cooperating because he did not turn over stockpiles of WMD regardless of he had them.

 

[Correll]

Do you realize how stupid your statement is?

“IF” he did not have WMDs he could not turn them over whenever he wanted.

1441 required he provide a listing of what he had. He did that.

He did not have anything of any significance. We did not find anything of any significance.


it is the epitome of ignorance when you say that SH was not cooperating because he did not turn over stockpiles of WMD regardless of he had them.

If the "process" was not to get the wmds collected and destroyed then it was fucking stupid.


You and people like you might be happy to just pretend to do shit. AMERICANS, not so much.


If Saddam wanted to "peacefully" resolve shit, he should have be prepared to turn over his WMDs.


Anything less, and as far as I am concerned, he was NOT co-operating.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If the "process" was not to get the wmds collected and destroyed then it was fucking stupid.

You are an absolute idiot. The process was in fact to verify that Iraq was disarmed of WMD. If Iraq actually did have WMD, then yes, they would destroy them. Iraq did not have any.

 

[Correll]

You are an absolute idiot. The process was in fact to verify that Iraq was disarmed of WMD. If Iraq actually did have WMD, then yes, they would destroy them. Iraq did not have any.

Sorry. WORDS would not convince me. Saddam was not credible. The un inspectors were not credible.

If you could not give me a pile of WMDs, to SEE that he was disarmed, I was not going to believe it.


YOU might find genocidal mass murderers credible, but I do not.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If Saddam wanted to "peacefully" resolve shit, he should have be prepared to turn over his WMDs.

No. He cooperated with the inspectors so they did not have to take his word for anything and then he needed to allow long term monitoring to go on forever if necessary if he wanted sanctions to be lifted.

 

[Correll]

No. He cooperated with the inspectors so they did not have to take his word for anything and then he needed to allow long term monitoring to go on forever if necessary if he wanted sanctions to be lifted.

If he was truly co-operating, he could have just turned over his wmds.


D'uh.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

YOU might find genocidal mass murderers credible, but I do not.

I didn’t find SH to be credible that he was not hiding WMD until W admitted that he did not have them. So why in the hell are you lying about me now?

The observation that Iraq was outwardly cooperating for months prior to the invasion had nothing to do with accepting SH’s credibility.

That diversion does you no good.

 

[Correll]

I didn’t find SH to be credible that he was not hiding WMD until W admitted that he did not have them. So why in the hell are you lying about me now?

The observation that Iraq was outwardly cooperating for months prior to the invasion had nothing to do with accepting SH’s credibility.

That diversion does you no good.

Not sure what you are talking about. President Bush did not "admit that" to long after the time period we are discussing.


Are you pretending to be too stupid to understand the concept of linear time?


My point stands.


If Saddam was truly co-operating, he could have turned over his stock pile of wmds, and all the talk of "being on the ground" and "being granted access" and such bullshit process shit, would be moot.


Barring that, any words from Saddam or hte un inspectors, were not credible.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If he was truly co-operating, he could have just turned over his wmds.

like I said

* #3,080
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

That includes warmongering idiots like you that make up your very own warmongering rules about what the 1441 requirement for cooperation was.

You are a stupid human.

 

[Correll]

like I said

* #3,080
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

That includes warmongering idiots like you that make up your very own warmongering rules about what the 1441 requirement for cooperation was.

You are a stupid human.

You asked about MY goals. I have been clear that I never gave a fuck about the UN.


You quoting the UN at me, is like a religious person quoting the bible to a godless lefty.


My point stands. I did not believe that Saddam was co-operating. You saying over and over again, how you found the word of a genocidal mass murderer to be inherently credible, is moot as the topic is MY views.


How many times will you need me to explain to you, this mindless simple point, before you get it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

My point stands

Every time you say that we can rest assured that your point fell down.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You saying over and over again, how you found the word of a genocidal mass murderer to be inherently credible, is moot as the topic is MY views.

You are a liar. I did not find SH’s word credible. When you have to lie about me you have zero credibility.

 

[Correll]

Every time you say that we can rest assured that your point fell down.

President Bush did not "admit that" to long after the time period we are discussing.


Are you pretending to be too stupid to understand the concept of linear time?


My point stands.


If Saddam was truly co-operating, he could have turned over his stock pile of wmds, and all the talk of "being on the ground" and "being granted access" and such bullshit process shit, would be moot.


Barring that, any words from Saddam or hte un inspectors, were not credible.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You asked about MY goals.

No! You attacked this and told lie after lie after lie:

* #3,080
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’m not going to let you get away with lying about a war that killed half a million Iraqis that you say you support.