Did you Support War in Iraq??

[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.

And...?


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

You don't know about the American model in Saudi Arabia.. Why it was successful and Britain was not. Get off your high horse and trying to dictate to the Arab world.

 

[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.

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?

Muslims deal with Muslim terrorists.. because Muslim terrorists kill other Muslims. Butt out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

I don’t have a position of "if we just leave them alone" regarding real terrorists that threaten us.

I just do not believe in killing hundreds of thousands to start a nation building project in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Thats your response. It was wrong about everything.

Will you explain what you think I got wrong so I can respond to your lies sandcastle lack of c facts accordingly.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What is your plan for dealing with muslim terorrism?

But you are a liar. They were not terrorists when you decided to kill half a million of them to start a Judeo -Christianity based nation building project on their sovereign land in Iraq.

 

[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?

You don't know about the American model in Saudi Arabia.. Why it was successful and Britain was not. Get off your high horse and trying to dictate to the Arab world.

"American model"? We didn't set up Saudi Arabia.

What are you even talking about?

 

[Correll]

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

I don’t have a position of "if we just leave them alone" regarding real terrorists that threaten us.

I just do not believe in killing hundreds of thousands to start a nation building project in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Thats your response. It was wrong about everything.

Will you explain what you think I got wrong so I can respond to your lies sandcastle lack of c facts accordingly.

We were leaving them alone when we were attacked out of the blue.

And, oh my god, can you stop with the emtional appeal bullshit. YES WAR SUCKS. You whining about it, is boring.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

it looks like you CAN force democracy on muslims, if you use enough force.

What gave you the moral authority to abort half a millions lives to force democracy on the people of Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We were leaving them alone when we were attacked out of the blue.

There regime and the people in Iraq had nothing to do with attacking us out of the blue.

Why do you keep lying that Iraq attacked us?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And, oh my god, can you stop with the emtional appeal bullshit. YES WAR SUCKS. You whining about it, is boring.

We were not attacked by or threatened in any way by Iraq in March 2003, so why did you beat the drums to start a war there in March 2003 if you know War sucks. You make no sense.

 

[irosie91]

And, oh my god, can you stop with the emtional appeal bullshit. YES WAR SUCKS. You whining about it, is boring.

We were not attacked by or threatened in any way by Iraq in March 2003, so why did you beat the drums to start a war there in March 2003 if you know War sucks. You make no sense.

we were not actually threatened by nazi germany either. Interestingly --the pro germany propaganda that I read as a child way back in the 50s emphasized that "fact"

 

[Correll]

What is your plan for dealing with muslim terorrism?

But you are a liar. They were not terrorists when you decided to kill half a million of them to start a Judeo -Christianity based nation building project on their sovereign land in Iraq.

1. They were terrorists.

2. I did not decide to kill a half million them. THat is you lying.

3. THe nation was always planned to be Muslm. THat is you lying more.

4. Oh, now the libtard believes in sovereignty. How cute.

5. You are a faggot.

 

[Correll]

it looks like you CAN force democracy on muslims, if you use enough force.

What gave you the moral authority to abort half a millions lives to force democracy on the people of Iraq?

Saddam's failure to fulfil his obligations under the ceasefire agreement.

 

[Correll]

We were leaving them alone when we were attacked out of the blue.

There regime and the people in Iraq had nothing to do with attacking us out of the blue.

Why do you keep lying that Iraq attacked us?

Your inability to follow the thread of the conversation, might be helped if you did not cut the majority of everything I post.

 

[Correll]

And, oh my god, can you stop with the emtional appeal bullshit. YES WAR SUCKS. You whining about it, is boring.

We were not attacked by or threatened in any way by Iraq in March 2003, so why did you beat the drums to start a war there in March 2003 if you know War sucks. You make no sense.

I explained why I supported the war. We have discussed it at length. That you disagree, is not a reason to ask the question again.


Are you pretending that you forgot all those other times? Or is this more of that thing, where you are unable to understand that other people disagree with you?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I explained why I supported the war.

I understand you supported killing innocent Iraqis for this purpise


To create

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

But your support of that unprepared undermanned military mission does not explain why you decided to kill innocent civilians in a nation that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on US soil in September 2001 and was no threat to any nation including our own when Bush started a war.

Why did you support starting a war against a non-existent threat? That’s what you cant answer.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. They were terrorists.

You decided it was necessary to kill Iraqis (it turned out to be half a million) because you determined they were terrorists? What evidence did you have that convinced you that Iraqis were terrorists.

 

[irosie91]

1. They were terrorists.

You decided it was necessary to kill Iraqis (it turned out to be half a million) because you determined they were terrorists? What evidence did you have that convinced you that Iraqis were terrorists.

The Iraq situation was a little complex and a problem created by the RULERS.
Saddaam was a vicious Baathist. ---which, at that time, made him a puppet of
Russia. The people of Iraq were no more criminal than the average german
child------just manipulated

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Iraq situation was a little complex and a problem created by the RULERS.

There was nothing complicated or complex about Iraq in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors in there on the ground.

At the time six out of ten Americans instinctively understood the simplicity and correctness of letting the inspectors finish the job of disarming Iraq peacefully instead of disarming Iraq by killing people during a fucking stupid and idiot Christian cultured nation’s invasion of a Muslim nation.

Specifically when the lying warmongers were warned in advance that going in unprepared for the aftermath of regime change would be catastrophic and very costly.

It was so fucking simple even Sleepy Joe had it figured out before the invasion was launched.

Wiser were were never said than these on letting inspectors continue a few more months .... and not listened to by the lying warmongers.

Senator Joe Biden *3: So the question, for me, is, Will the additional time given increase the risk beyond the support we will get by allowing more time?​

Senator Joe Biden *3: I say, the value--not the legitimacy, not the justness, not the equities--this guy does not deserve another tenth of a second, but by giving him another 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months and not moving until the next``cold,'' quote/unquote, season in their--in the late fall, what is the risk of doing that relative to the amount of support we would pick up, making our overall job, which is going to be immense, in my view, easier?​

​

Senator Joe Biden *3: But the question is, Does his failure to cooperate increase the risk in a way that outweighs the risk of going with fewer people, less support when we go?​

​

Senator Joe Biden *3: Now, I realize that maintaining the deployment of a hundred-plus-thousand forces in the region is costly. I would just raise, for--as a question to be considered--it is a heck of a lot more costly to deploy those forces with fewer people helping us, and less commitment to mop up after it is over. ​

​

Senator Joe Biden *3: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​

​

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq​

​

Senator Biden: Having others with us increases our chance of success. And by success, I mean not just taking down Saddam. That is not the measure of success. The measure of success is, if we take him down, if need be, we gather up and destroy the weapons of mass destruction, and we are assured that there is a government in place that is not likely to reconstitute the menace and threat. ​

That is a gigantic undertaking that exceeds merely the military operation.

Senator Biden: And it also, if we have others with us, decreases the risk and lowers the cost, and it invests others in the complicated matter of the day after, or, more appropriately, in my view, the decade after. And it does not make us a target of every terrorist and malcontent in the world if we are not doing this alone. It matters. It matters, in terms of our naked self-interest.​

 

[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.

And...?


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

You don't know about the American model in Saudi Arabia.. Why it was successful and Britain was not. Get off your high horse and trying to dictate to the Arab world.

"American model"? We didn't set up Saudi Arabia.

What are you even talking about?

When the American oilmen went to Arabia they had a totally different approach than the Brits in Iran and Iraq. They exploited the OIL not the people. They also kept the US government at arm's length.

 

[surada]

The Iraq situation was a little complex and a problem created by the RULERS.

There was nothing complicated or complex about Iraq in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors in there on the ground.

At the time six out of ten Americans instinctively understood the simplicity and correctness of letting the inspectors finish the job of disarming Iraq peacefully instead of disarming Iraq by killing people during a fucking stupid and idiot Christian cultured nation’sinvasion of a Muslim nation. Specifically when the lying warmongers were warned in advance that going in unprepared for the aftermath of regime change would be catastrophic and very costly.

It was so fucking simple even Sleepy Joe had it figured out befirec the invasion was launched.


Wiser were were never said than these on letting inspectors continue a few more months .... and not listened to by the lying warmongers.

Senator Joe Biden *3: So the question, for me, is, Will the additional time given increase the risk beyond the support we will get by allowing more time?​

Senator Joe Biden *3: I say, the value--not the legitimacy, not the justness, not the equities--this guy does not deserve another tenth of a second, but by giving him another 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months and not moving until the next``cold,'' quote/unquote, season in their--in the late fall, what is the risk of doing that relative to the amount of support we would pick up, making our overall job, which is going to be immense, in my view, easier?​

Senator Joe Biden *3: But the question is, Does his failure to cooperate increase the risk in a way that outweighs the risk of going with fewer people, less support when we go?​

Senator Joe Biden *3: Now, I realize that maintaining the deployment of a hundred-plus-thousand forces in the region is costly. I would just raise, for--as a question to be considered--it is a heck of a lot more costly to deploy those forces with fewer people helping us, and less commitment to mop up after it is over. ​

Senator Joe Biden *3: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq​

Senator Biden: Having others with us increases our chance of success. And by success, I mean not just taking down Saddam. That is not the measure of success. The measure of success is, if we take him down, if need be, we gather up and destroy the weapons of mass destruction, and we are assured that there is a government in place that is not likely to reconstitute the menace and threat. ​

That is a gigantic undertaking that exceeds merely the military operation.

Senator Biden: And it also, if we have others with us, decreases the risk and lowers the cost, and it invests others in the complicated matter of the day after, or, more appropriately, in my view, the decade after. And it does not make us a target of every terrorist and malcontent in the world if we are not doing this alone. It matters. It matters, in terms of our naked self-interest.​

The whole reason for the invasion of Iraq was a lie.. The UK started Operaton Mass Appeal in 1997-1998 to sell the war to the world with non-stop demonization.

Sir Derek Plumbly was in charge. The purpose was to satisfy Israel because Bibi's Clean Break Strategy of 1996 demanded the overthrow of Saddam.

Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions BEFORE the invasion. Iraq was NO threat to the neighbors or the US.