Did you Support War in Iraq??

[surada]

realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.

Yes and that would be compatible with waiting another 90 days to let the inspectors make a final determination because if the inspections went to shit because Saddam Hussein pulled something yeah the army there and ready to go and no one would be questioning W’s decision to invade.

that’s what six out of 10 Americans preferred doing. So we have every damn right to question that ignorant decision not to wait 90 days after the whole situation with the Iraq and been going on for 12 years and finally because of the threat of force around his country Saddam Hussain was doing everything possible to be verified disarmed.

If you were OK with not inviting produce regime change then your whole argument is even more stupid than first expressed on this thread.

Even Bush's father opposed junior's dumbass invasion.

 

[Correll]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Why don't you butt out and leave them in peace? All Islam is fundamental. Its called the 5 Pillars of Islam.

The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?

 

[surada]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Why don't you butt out and leave them in peace? All Islam is fundamental. Its called the 5 Pillars of Islam.

The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?

Jesus.. What is wrong with you ? "Muslims" didn't attack the US. OBL attacked the US and tried to blame the Saudis and start a war between Muslims and the West.

 

[Correll]

realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.

Yes and that would be compatible with waiting another 90 days to let the inspectors make a final determination because if the inspections went to shit because Saddam Hussein pulled something yeah the army there and ready to go and no one would be questioning W’s decision to invade.

that’s what six out of 10 Americans preferred doing. So we have every damn right to question that ignorant decision not to wait 90 days after the whole situation with the Iraq and been going on for 12 years and finally because of the threat of force around his country Saddam Hussain was doing everything possible to be verified disarmed.

If you were OK with not inviting produce regime change then your whole argument is even more stupid than first expressed on this thread.

Even Bush's father opposed junior's dumbass invasion.

Irrelevant. Are you just here to throw shit at your enemies, like a monkey?

 

[surada]

realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.

Yes and that would be compatible with waiting another 90 days to let the inspectors make a final determination because if the inspections went to shit because Saddam Hussein pulled something yeah the army there and ready to go and no one would be questioning W’s decision to invade.

that’s what six out of 10 Americans preferred doing. So we have every damn right to question that ignorant decision not to wait 90 days after the whole situation with the Iraq and been going on for 12 years and finally because of the threat of force around his country Saddam Hussain was doing everything possible to be verified disarmed.

If you were OK with not inviting produce regime change then your whole argument is even more stupid than first expressed on this thread.

Even Bush's father opposed junior's dumbass invasion.

Irrelevant. Are you just here to throw shit at your enemies, like a monkey?

Papa Bush warned him not to invade Iraq. He had enough experience to in the Middle East know what a can of worms that would be and how it would benefit Iran.

Most of why this went down was just stupidity.

 

[Correll]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Why don't you butt out and leave them in peace? All Islam is fundamental. Its called the 5 Pillars of Islam.

The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?

Jesus.. What is wrong with you ? "Muslims" didn't attack the US. OBL attacked the US and tried to blame the Saudis and start a war between Muslims and the West.

You confused about the way people can be members of a larger group?

That is your problem. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, my point stands. We CAN'T leave them in peace. They attacked and will attack us again. Being connected with the Muslim world means we need to decide how we are going to deal with terrorism.

What is your plan to deal with it?

 

[Correll]

realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.

Yes and that would be compatible with waiting another 90 days to let the inspectors make a final determination because if the inspections went to shit because Saddam Hussein pulled something yeah the army there and ready to go and no one would be questioning W’s decision to invade.

that’s what six out of 10 Americans preferred doing. So we have every damn right to question that ignorant decision not to wait 90 days after the whole situation with the Iraq and been going on for 12 years and finally because of the threat of force around his country Saddam Hussain was doing everything possible to be verified disarmed.

If you were OK with not inviting produce regime change then your whole argument is even more stupid than first expressed on this thread.

Even Bush's father opposed junior's dumbass invasion.

Irrelevant. Are you just here to throw shit at your enemies, like a monkey?

Papa Bush warned him not to invade Iraq. He had enough experience to in the Middle East know what a can of worms that would be and how it would benefit Iran.

Most of why this went down was just stupidity.

You only care about what he said, because you can use it to smear your enemies.


Like a monkey throwing his own poo.



This whole thread is you lefties being so close minded, that you can't understand that people that disagree with you, disagree with you.


You look retarded. The only reason that more people don't realize how retarded you look, is that your are being soooo retarded that it is hard for non retarded people to even understand what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[surada]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Why don't you butt out and leave them in peace? All Islam is fundamental. Its called the 5 Pillars of Islam.

The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?

Jesus.. What is wrong with you ? "Muslims" didn't attack the US. OBL attacked the US and tried to blame the Saudis and start a war between Muslims and the West.

You confused about the way people can be members of a larger group?

That is your problem. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, my point stands. We CAN'T leave them in peace. They attacked and will attack us again. Being connected with the Muslim world means we need to decide how we are going to deal with terrorism.

What is your plan to deal with it?

You are beyond stupid. Terrorists kill mostly Muslims, you idiot.

 

[Correll]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Why don't you butt out and leave them in peace? All Islam is fundamental. Its called the 5 Pillars of Islam.

The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?

Jesus.. What is wrong with you ? "Muslims" didn't attack the US. OBL attacked the US and tried to blame the Saudis and start a war between Muslims and the West.

You confused about the way people can be members of a larger group?

That is your problem. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, my point stands. We CAN'T leave them in peace. They attacked and will attack us again. Being connected with the Muslim world means we need to decide how we are going to deal with terrorism.

What is your plan to deal with it?

You are beyond stupid. Terrorists kill mostly Muslims, you idiot.

What is your plan to deal with their attacks on US?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What is your plan to deal with their attacks on US?

In March 2003 the plan was let the inspectors deal with SH and his WMD issue who had nothing to do with the 09/11/01 attacks. Finish the job in Afghanistan and pursue OBL in Pakistan while cleaning out the real terrorists hiding in the no man’s land on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

And Don’t spend $5 trillion and 250,000 troops and most of our intelligence assets in Iraq that didn’t have any WMD. That’s was the plan.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are raving. I did not believe that the "peaceful disarmament" was working.

I have repeatedly asked you if you understand that people that disagree with you, don't agree with you.

The purpose of this discussion is to arrive at the truth. One key issue is getting to the truth that the peaceful disarming of Iraq through inspections was working. When you say you didn’t “believe” that they were working you are avoiding getting to the truth. And the truth is the peaceful means of UN inspectors was working unless the UNSC decided it was not. What you ‘believed’ had no bearing on the matter of fact. You have no honest basis to say they were not working. When you claim that SH continued to poke the Bear after 1441 You are lying. That is a lie. You cannot ground your argument in a lie.

It us not a disagreement we are having. You are lying.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?

Shams Amin did not attack us. Why did you kill her? SH had nothing to do with it .

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You were happy to keep fucking around with Saddam forever. America was not.

Like I told you. You do not speak for America.

Facts: Through March 10 2003 Bush was happy to leave Saddam in power if the UNSC declared SH in compliance with all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq by March 17, 2003. That is public knowledge. It is therefore a fact.

It means on March 10 there was no threat to world peace according to Bush and Blair if SH remained in power. ZERO THREAT!


But you have been duped into believing that SH did something threat-wise between March 10 and March 17 that made it NECESSARY all of a sudden that Bush had to kill Shams Amin in a restaurant in order to try to kill SH.

What did SH do after March 10 that left BUSH no other choice but to invade Iraq and start a quagmire?

If you cannot find any facts about what SH did after March 10, your answer is that you do not know and your arguments worded thus far are entirely flawed based facts that we have and can know.

 

[Correll]

What is your plan to deal with their attacks on US?

In March 2003 the plan was let the inspectors deal with SH and his WMD issue who had nothing to do with the 09/11/01 attacks. Finish the job in Afghanistan and pursue OBL in Pakistan while cleaning out the real terrorists hiding in the no man’s land on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

And Don’t spend $5 trillion and 250,000 troops and most of our intelligence assets in Iraq that didn’t have any WMD. That’s was the plan.

Got it. Your plan is to just accept it as the new normal.


Question: Why as a society did we not see this coming and NOT do it?

 

[Correll]

You are raving. I did not believe that the "peaceful disarmament" was working.

I have repeatedly asked you if you understand that people that disagree with you, don't agree with you.

The purpose of this discussion is to arrive at the truth. One key issue is getting to the truth that the peaceful disarming of Iraq through inspections was working. When you say you didn’t “believe” that they were working you are avoiding getting to the truth. And the truth is the peaceful means of UN inspectors was working unless the UNSC decided it was not. What you ‘believed’ had no bearing on the matter of fact. You have no honest basis to say they were not working. When you claim that SH continued to poke the Bear after 1441 You are lying. That is a lie. You cannot ground your argument in a lie.

It us not a disagreement we are having. You are lying.

The purpose of this thread is to hold people (your enemies) responsible for doing something they did not do, ie knowingly supporting a lie.

You are so blinded with partisan hate, that you cannot respect that other people disagree with your opinion on whether or not "peaceful disarmament" was working.

 

[Correll]

The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?

Shams Amin did not attack us. Why did you kill her? SH had nothing to do with it .

You so ignorant you never heard of collateral damage? Stop living under a rock.

 

[Correll]

You were happy to keep fucking around with Saddam forever. America was not.

Like I told you. You do not speak for America.
....

The fact that America did not keep fucking around with Saddam forever, shows that "I do speak for America", at least in this instance.


You seem confused by the concept of history. You don't get to deny shit that happened, happened.

 

[surada]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Why don't you butt out and leave them in peace? All Islam is fundamental. Its called the 5 Pillars of Islam.

The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?

Jesus.. What is wrong with you ? "Muslims" didn't attack the US. OBL attacked the US and tried to blame the Saudis and start a war between Muslims and the West.

You confused about the way people can be members of a larger group?

That is your problem. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, my point stands. We CAN'T leave them in peace. They attacked and will attack us again. Being connected with the Muslim world means we need to decide how we are going to deal with terrorism.

What is your plan to deal with it?

Arab leadership is out to stop these terrorists and providing intel to the US. Have been for 20 years. They are a bigger threat to the Arabs than they are to us.. You are really dumb and irrational.

Have you considered the consequences of overthrowing Saddam and impowering Iran? ISIS came out of Camp Bucca prison in 2004. Have you considered that Al Qaeda came out of our war on Afghanistn to save Enron's Dabhol white elephant?

Have you considered that when we put Iran in the catbird set we got the al Houthis in Yemen?

 

[Correll]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Why don't you butt out and leave them in peace? All Islam is fundamental. Its called the 5 Pillars of Islam.

The War on Terror started with them attacking US. Did you forget that?

Jesus.. What is wrong with you ? "Muslims" didn't attack the US. OBL attacked the US and tried to blame the Saudis and start a war between Muslims and the West.

You confused about the way people can be members of a larger group?

That is your problem. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, my point stands. We CAN'T leave them in peace. They attacked and will attack us again. Being connected with the Muslim world means we need to decide how we are going to deal with terrorism.

What is your plan to deal with it?

Arab leadership is out to stop these terrorists and providing intel to the US. Have been for 20 years. They are a bigger threat to the Arabs than they are to us.. You are really dumb and irrational.

Have you considered the consequences of overthrowing Saddam and impowering Iran? ISIS came out of Camp Bucca prison in 2004. Have you considered that Al Qaeda came out of our war on Afghanistn to save Enron's Dabhol white elephant?

Have you considered that when we put Iran in the catbird set we got the al Houthis in Yemen?

"Arab leadership" is not going to stop terrorism, especially when the fbi regularly ignores their and other warning signs on a constant basis.


Your plan, the plan we are using as a society, at this time, is to just accept terrorism as part of the new normal. Every now and then, muslims terrorists will get upset over something in our society and kill some of us.


Question: Why did we as a society choose that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position. YOURS is that somehow, you are sure that that means he was lying.

However, the fact is that you cannot deny that your position that George Bush was sure “leaving no doubt” that Iraq was hiding WMD from 1441 inspectors beyond March 10 2003 is solely based upon your personal partisan political bias and not on knowable facts that are available to us.

My position is based solely in knowable facts that partisans such as you refuse to examine and discuss and refute if that were possible. Your only recourse is to ignore the facts presented to you and to cheapen language by constantly insulting the presenter of fact.