Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

A claim from someone is not a fact. Especially when they have motive to lie.

Are you saying Dr Hans Blix was lying when he said in February 2003 that with the proactive cooperation from SH his estimate of completing the peaceful disarmament of Iraq would be about three months?

Are you saying you have evidence that SH was not proactively cooperating in February 2003?

What are you saying exactly?


Dyou write this:

I don't see how any team of outsiders can find something in a nation, if the national government wants to hide it.

But what if the national government is surrounded by a quarter of a million of angry American and British soldiers armed to the teeth ready to invade if the Dictator tries to hide something.

And did you write all of this:

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

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.

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.

Have you changed your opinion since now you know that the other 13 members on the United Nations Security Council we’re credible, we’re right, to allow the peaceful disarmament of Iraq that was in progress finish?

 

[Correll]

A claim from someone is not a fact. Especially when they have motive to lie.

Are you saying Dr Hans Blix was lying when he said in February 2003 that with the proactive cooperation from SH his estimate of completing the peaceful disarmament of Iraq would be about three months?

Are you saying you have evidence that SH was not proactively cooperating in February 2003?

What are you saying exactly?


Dyou write this:

I don't see how any team of outsiders can find something in a nation, if the national government wants to hide it.

But what if the national government is surrounded by a quarter of a million of angry American and British soldiers armed to the teeth ready to invade if the Dictator tries to hide something.

And did you write all of this:

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

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.

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

1. I meant that a claim is not a fact. You cite Authorities as though their Authorities means that their words define reality. They do not.


2. I certainly did not consider him credible. I think him and the other inspectors would have said anything to avoid a war. THey were motivated by a strong desire for peace and that made them not credible.

3. Yes, I did. What of it?

 

[Correll]

I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.

Have you changed your opinion since now you know that the other 13 members on the United Nations Security Council we’re credible, we’re right, to allow the peaceful disarmament of Iraq that was in progress finish?

1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.

2. The peaceful process was not working. It could never have been "finished".

3. Have you heard the phrase, "humans are an irrational, pattern seeking animial"?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.

Do you now know that the other 13 members on the UNSC were “right” to have rejected warmongering and favored allowing the peaceful disarmament of Iraq to be finished.

What do you mean peaceful disarmament of Iraq couild not be finished

2. The peaceful process was not working. It could never have been "finished".

It would be ‘finished’ when Blix and El Baradai says it is finished.

What facts do you have to back up you claim that UN Weapons inspections could never be finished?

 

[Correll]

1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.

Do you now know that the other 13 members on the UNSC were “right” to have rejected warmongering and favored allowing the peaceful disarmament of Iraq to be finished.

What do you mean peaceful disarmament of Iraq couild not be finished

2. The peaceful process was not working. It could never have been "finished".

It would be ‘finished’ when Blix and El Baradai says it is finished.

What facts do you have to back up you claim that UN Weapons inspections could never be finished?

It would have been finished when they found the wmds, or documentation that they were destroyed.

Saddam insanely destroyed the wmds, without documenting it.


Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at.


Your claim that the process would be successful, when they state it is successfully, is again, you thinking that these Authorities' words, define reality.


That you think that is a "fact" is you demonstrating your mental issues.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at.

That has got to be one of the stupidest warmonger arguments ever in the history of the world.

You must be the only warmonger in the entire world Making that absurd point..

We killed 500,000 and spent $5 Trillion on the
very same fools errand that you are now claiming the 1441 inspectors were on..

Most warmongers created and clung to one early myth when it was becoming clear to the sane people that the WMD did not exist in Iraq because Bush lied.

That myth went like this. Saddam had WMD But right before the invasion he moved them all to Syria or put them on ships that are circling at sea somewhere.

Thats dumb but not as dumb as the Iraq myth you just concocted.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The War on Terror started with them attacking US.

The Iraqis did not attack us. Saddam Hussein did not attack us. Lincoln did not attack the South. he responded to an attack by the South. You are very confused about who attacked whom.


So your response was to commit a massive terrorist attack on innocent Iraqi people “for their own good” with prettied up and sugar coated terrorism using phrases such as ‘collateral damage’ and “Operation Iraqi Freedom “

You so ignorant you never heard of collateral damage?

You killed Shams Amin, a young waitress working in a restaurant in Baghdad. She was no threat to you but you had the sudden urge to do this:

Start a war by bombing the piss out of Bagdad and invading her predominantly Muslim country with a couple hundred thousand heavily armed soldiers from a predominately Christian culture.in order to break ground in the nation building project for ca new American Century to create a ...functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East....

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

what separates you from OBL?

You attacked innocent civilians not as a matter of National self defense nor in any way in a response to an immediate threat or ongoing threat.

You killed Shams Amin you’ve said because you were angry..... and I take it that your underlying message is don’t fuck around with white cultural Christians men when they get angry.


Some got so damned angry they recently launch an assault on America’s Democratic process to try to keep their loser POTUS in power.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Is Saddam Hussein's regime in charge of Iraq? Does Iraq pose a real or perceived threat to the US? The answered to both of those questions is no. I stand by that decision.

 

[Correll]

Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at.

That has got to be one of the stupidest warmonger arguments ever in the history of the world.

You must be the only warmonger in the entire world Making that absurd point..

We killed 500,000 and spent $5 Trillion on the
very same fools errand that you are now claiming the 1441 inspectors were on..

Most warmongers created and clung to one early myth when it was becoming clear to the sane people that the WMD did not exist in Iraq because Bush lied.

That myth went like this. Saddam had WMD But right before the invasion he moved them all to Syria or put them on ships that are circling at sea somewhere.

Thats dumb but not as dumb as the Iraq myth you just concocted.

The inspectors were to find the wmds, or documentation that they had been destroyed.


Saddam destroyed them, without documenting the fact.


Neither the wmds, nor the documentation that the inspectors needed to be successful, existed.


That is my point. I agree that no one else is making it. I am the only one to think it though clearly.


Nothing in your post, addressed my point, let alone challenged it.


That bit where you whine about the expense of the war? That was just you making an emotional argument, because you don't have a rational one to make.


That is demagoguery, of the type that you lefties like to whine about if Trump does it. Just fyi.


Have you ever heard the phrase, "humans are an irrational pattern seeking animal"?

 

[Correll]

The War on Terror started with them attacking US.

The Iraqis did not attack us. Saddam Hussein did not attack us. Lincoln did not attack the South. he responded to an attack by the South. You are very confused about who attacked whom.


So your response was to commit a massive terrorist attack on innocent Iraqi people “for their own good” with prettied up and sugar coated terrorism using phrases such as ‘collateral damage’ and “Operation Iraqi Freedom “

You so ignorant you never heard of collateral damage?

You killed Shams Amin, a young waitress working in a restaurant in Baghdad. She was no threat to you but you had the sudden urge to do this:

Start a war by bombing the piss out of Bagdad and invading her predominantly Muslim country with a couple hundred thousand heavily armed soldiers from a predominately Christian culture.in order to break ground in the nation building project for ca new American Century to create a ...functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East....

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

what separates you from OBL?

You attacked innocent civilians not as a matter of National self defense nor in any way in a response to an immediate threat or ongoing threat.

You killed Shams Amin you’ve said because you were angry..... and I take it that your underlying message is don’t fuck around with white cultural Christians men when they get angry.


Some got so damned angry they recently launch an assault on America’s Democratic process to try to keep their loser POTUS in power.

1. My point about the War on Terror starting with them attack US, stands. You did not address it.


2. Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

The rest of your post is meaningless demagoguery. Dismissed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2. Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

Its a War of ideas where in your case you approve enforcing your idea on other nations by military force. With your lack of morality it is required and permissible in your fascist mind to kill innocent civilians as long as you call it collateral damage.

War of ideas used to be a phrase that you win without killing and maiming one single human being in the process. You are endorsing killing and maiming and displacing millions of mostly Muslims to force your idea onto them.

Not a very Christian or American IDEA if you ask me. But I don’t know that much about what it means to be a cultural Christian American such as you have claimed to be. I’m just an American who would never want our military to strike a nation or any of its people that was not an immediate threat to our American way of life.

That’s how we win the War of IDEAS . Not becoming a terror sponsor as you expect us to be just because we are the biggest and baddest dog in the fight. We must keep ourselves retrained unless the THREAT is REAL.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The War on Terror started with them attacking US.

Who are you saying “them” was? We are talking about why start a war with Iraq when they had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Why didn’t you call for regime change in Pakistan. Or are least Nuke their Nukes since collateral damage does not appear to matter or bother you in your militarily enforced War of ideas?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The inspectors were to find the wmds, or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Thats not a fact. It was not limited to those two choices. You’re just making shit up.

They were there to verify that Iraq no longer had the capability and facilities to produce nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. They were there to verify and confirm for the United Nations Security Council that Iraq did not possess biological or chemical weapons.

During the first 100 days weapons inspectors focused on the SUNNI triangle in the north where is most likely that if any violations were occurring it would be there.

You know, we’re Rumsfeld said they were;

STEPHANOPOULOS: s it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?​

​

Rumsfeld’s Revisionist History: ‘We Know Where The WMD Suspect Sites Are’​

​

RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces — the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.​

The weapons inspectors focused on the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat - Like Rummy said. He’s not completing the searches in the SHIA south because they were not geared up for it yet in March 2003.

South is where they chemical weapons were unilateral laterally destroyed right after the first gulf war in burn pits.

I realize you don’t like to contemplate facts but Dr. Hans Blix stated at the time that they were gearing up to move to the southern Iraq and try to use some technology to ascertain the quantities and weapons that were unilaterally destroyed.

Blix estimated this would take another few months.

They were also gearing up at the time that Bush decided to put a halt to inspections to bring in U2 planes and underground penetrating radar to complete the verification that a Iraq was indeed disarmed.

About a third of Americans including yourself dud not have the patience to wait a few months to get the scientific answer.

Your attempt to lie about what was going on in Iraq with the UN and weapons inspectors is a nice try to assuage your non guilt but you are being called on it. Your manufactured lies now do not wash the black stain off your heart and on your conscience for getting half a million people killed and spending 5 trillion of US taxpayer dollars on the absolutely totally needless and unnecessary use of massive overwhelming military force against a very weak defenseless nation.

 

[Correll]

2. Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

Its a War of ideas where in your case you approve enforcing your idea on other nations by military force. With your lack of morality it is required and permissible in your fascist mind to kill innocent civilians as long as you call it collateral damage.

War of ideas used to be a phrase that you win without killing and maiming one single human being in the process. You are endorsing killing and maiming and displacing millions of mostly Muslims to force your idea onto them.

Not a very Christian or American IDEA if you ask me. But I don’t know that much about what it means to be a cultural Christian American such as you have claimed to be. I’m just an American who would never want our military to strike a nation or any of its people that was not an immediate threat to our American way of life.

That’s how we win the War of IDEAS . Not becoming a terror sponsor as you expect us to be just because we are the biggest and baddest dog in the fight. We must keep ourselves retrained unless the THREAT is REAL.

Your desire to never use our military except against nations that are an immediate threat to our American way of life, would just let all of our enemies know that they would have complete freedom of action to target our allies, other nations, and our interests, and work together on long term plans to destroy us,


as long as they did not pose an immediate threat to US, until they were ready to.



The rest of your post was just you explaining in a very emotional fashion that you disagree with me, without making any real challenge to my point, so it stands.


Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

 

[Correll]

The War on Terror started with them attacking US.

Who are you saying “them” was? We are talking about why start a war with Iraq when they had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Why didn’t you call for regime change in Pakistan. Or are least Nuke their Nukes since collateral damage does not appear to matter or bother you in your militarily enforced War of ideas?

Oh, you missed teh part where the discussion wandered over to larger questions?

Jeez, I guess that can happen when you cut the vast majority of what the other person says from every post.


YOu were part of that process too. Didn't bother you, till you wanted an excuse to dodge a point.


My point stands. You position of "if we just leave them alone", was proven false. Or wrong.

If I was an asshole, I would accuse you of LYING, just because you are, imo, WRONG, on a matter of "fact".

 

[surada]

Is Saddam Hussein's regime in charge of Iraq? Does Iraq pose a real or perceived threat to the US? The answered to both of those questions is no. I stand by that decision.

Bibi demanded that Saddam be overthrow in 1996 in Clean Break Strategy.. The PNAC promoted that in their letter to Clinton in 1998.

 

[surada]

2. Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

Its a War of ideas where in your case you approve enforcing your idea on other nations by military force. With your lack of morality it is required and permissible in your fascist mind to kill innocent civilians as long as you call it collateral damage.

War of ideas used to be a phrase that you win without killing and maiming one single human being in the process. You are endorsing killing and maiming and displacing millions of mostly Muslims to force your idea onto them.

Not a very Christian or American IDEA if you ask me. But I don’t know that much about what it means to be a cultural Christian American such as you have claimed to be. I’m just an American who would never want our military to strike a nation or any of its people that was not an immediate threat to our American way of life.

That’s how we win the War of IDEAS . Not becoming a terror sponsor as you expect us to be just because we are the biggest and baddest dog in the fight. We must keep ourselves retrained unless the THREAT is REAL.

Your desire to never use our military except against nations that are an immediate threat to our American way of life, would just let all of our enemies know that they would have complete freedom of action to target our allies, other nations, and our interests, and work together on long term plans to destroy us,


as long as they did not pose an immediate threat to US, until they were ready to.



The rest of your post was just you explaining in a very emotional fashion that you disagree with me, without making any real challenge to my point, so it stands.


Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

You can't force democracy on Muslims.. That's the point. What sort of ugly American thinks he can reform their religon, culture, government and heritage?

Really.. Its a vile notion and a very, very arrogant one. The vvast majjorit of Muslims aren't terrorists, but you can keep working at it until they are.

 

[Correll]

Is Saddam Hussein's regime in charge of Iraq? Does Iraq pose a real or perceived threat to the US? The answered to both of those questions is no. I stand by that decision.

Bibi demanded that Saddam be overthrow in 1996 in Clean Break Strategy.. The PNAC promoted that in their letter to Clinton in 1998.

And...?


I mean, seriously, wtf is wrong with you? Do you have brain damage?

 

[Correll]

2. Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

Its a War of ideas where in your case you approve enforcing your idea on other nations by military force. With your lack of morality it is required and permissible in your fascist mind to kill innocent civilians as long as you call it collateral damage.

War of ideas used to be a phrase that you win without killing and maiming one single human being in the process. You are endorsing killing and maiming and displacing millions of mostly Muslims to force your idea onto them.

Not a very Christian or American IDEA if you ask me. But I don’t know that much about what it means to be a cultural Christian American such as you have claimed to be. I’m just an American who would never want our military to strike a nation or any of its people that was not an immediate threat to our American way of life.

That’s how we win the War of IDEAS . Not becoming a terror sponsor as you expect us to be just because we are the biggest and baddest dog in the fight. We must keep ourselves retrained unless the THREAT is REAL.

Your desire to never use our military except against nations that are an immediate threat to our American way of life, would just let all of our enemies know that they would have complete freedom of action to target our allies, other nations, and our interests, and work together on long term plans to destroy us,


as long as they did not pose an immediate threat to US, until they were ready to.



The rest of your post was just you explaining in a very emotional fashion that you disagree with me, without making any real challenge to my point, so it stands.


Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

You can't force democracy on Muslims.. That's the point. What sort of ugly American thinks he can reform their religon, culture, government and heritage?

Really.. Its a vile notion and a very, very arrogant one. The vvast majjorit of Muslims aren't terrorists, but you can keep working at it until they are.

My understanding is that Iraq is a functioning democracy right now, so, it looks like you CAN force democracy on muslims, if you use enough force.

I can see how that would seem arrogant.


What is your plan for dealing with muslim terorrism?