Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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.

But it does explain it. Clearly. ALL the answer you need is in that portion of my post you cut and pasted.

BUT, by repeating the question over and over again, you get to create the illusion that it is not an answer.

AND you get to play your APPEAL TO EMOTION logical fallacy of whining about the human cost of war.

You are a dishonest partisan hack. And you are an asshole about it.

 

[Correll]

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.

Why? So you can pretend to disprove it, and thus claim that I am lying about my motive in the past?


Have you realized that cause and effect only moves FORWARD yet?

 

[Correll]

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

Not likes to focus on a small complexity, and then pretend that that existing means that another issue raised, was a lie.

 

[surada]

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.

But it does explain it. Clearly. ALL the answer you need is in that portion of my post you cut and pasted.

BUT, by repeating the question over and over again, you get to create the illusion that it is not an answer.

AND you get to play your APPEAL TO EMOTION logical fallacy of whining about the human cost of war.

You are a dishonest partisan hack. And you are an asshole about it.

Prince Bandar was the Saudi Ambassador to the US.. He was also a Bush classmate and loaned him the money for his total fuck up with Arbusto.

Bandar tried to talk Bush out of the invasion repeatedly, warning him of the consequences. Bush margialized Bandar and Bandar was recalled to Arabia.

Bandar's father was Sultan Bin Abdulaziz.. Did you know him? Good guy .. very westernized, excellent English and Pro-American all the way.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. They were terrorists.

You claim the Iraqis were terrorists in March 2003.

So you were asked for evidence to back your claim:

What evidence did you have that convinced you that Iraqis were terrorists.

All we get is excuses from you putting the blame on me because you don’t have evidence for any of your nonsensical arguments in defense of lie-based warmongering in March 2003.

Why? So you can pretend to disprove it,

That’s what you do when asked for evidence if your false claims and phony arguments.

Broad-brushing the Iraqi people as terrorists is absurd. You should post the definition of ignorance as your evidence. That’s the most factual explanation for what a warmonger is doing here.

 

[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?

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.

What does that have to do with anything that was being discussed in the thread?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But it does explain it. Clearly. ALL the answer you need is in that portion of my post you cut and pasted.

No. You have explained that nation building would push back on Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and that would somehow someday reduce the threat from Islamic terrorists at some point in the future..

What was asked of you is this:

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

Why? Why Correll did you demand that your “nation building” project in Iraq have a “must start” date of March 17, 2003 in the absence of any kind of threat to our national security at that time.

That’s the relevant question for you because you must have known at the time that the US military was not built to put a nation together after breaking it. You had to know that Bush did not have a civilian-centric plan or people to secure the innocent Iraqi people once the police and army and civic institutions in Iraq were obliterated.

 

[Correll]

1. They were terrorists.

You claim the Iraqis were terrorists in March 2003.

So you were asked for evidence to back your claim:

What evidence did you have that convinced you that Iraqis were terrorists.

All we get is excuses from you putting the blame on me because you don’t have evidence for any of your nonsensical arguments in defense of lie-based warmongering in March 2003.

Why? So you can pretend to disprove it,

That’s what you do when asked for evidence if your false claims and phony arguments.

Broad-brushing the Iraqi people as terrorists is absurd. You should post the definition of ignorance as your evidence. That’s the most factual explanation for what a warmonger is doing here.

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

Now you will dismiss or deny that, and use your disagreement as a reason to pretend that my motive was not my motive, in the past.


Which of course, is not how time works.


You are just a partisan hack, trying to spin up a mountain out of dead horse, so that you have an excuse to smear your enemies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? Are you calling the US Military Liars.

Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida, says Pentagon study​

Elana Schor
Wed 12 Mar 2008 20.35 EDT

A US military study officially acknowledged for the first time yesterday that Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida, undercutting the Bush administration's central case for war with Iraq.
The Pentagon study based on more than 600,000 documents recovered after US and UK troops toppled Hussein in 2003, discovered "no 'smoking gun' (ie, direct connection) between Saddam's Iraqand al-Qaida", its authors wrote.
George Bush and his senior aides have made numerous attempts to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terror in their justification for waging war against Iraq.

 

[Correll]

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? Are you calling the US Military Liars.

Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida, says Pentagon study​

Elana Schor
Wed 12 Mar 2008 20.35 EDT

A US military study officially acknowledged for the first time yesterday that Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida, undercutting the Bush administration's central case for war with Iraq.
The Pentagon study based on more than 600,000 documents recovered after US and UK troops toppled Hussein in 2003, discovered "no 'smoking gun' (ie, direct connection) between Saddam's Iraqand al-Qaida", its authors wrote.
George Bush and his senior aides have made numerous attempts to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terror in their justification for waging war against Iraq.

That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.

And even then, I would be suspicious of the weasel word, "direct".

Like I care if support goes though a middle man. lol!!!


You really are a monkey just throwing shit at a wall, aren't you?


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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.

So are you therefore confessing that you understand that Bush was lying when they cited Saddam Hussain’s ties to Al-Qaeda as one of the justifications for starting a war on March 17, 2003 to beat this summer heat and have Saddam Hussein removed from power prior to the 2004 election year.

Now that we have Al-Qaeda out of the way what terrorist organizations are you referring to where is Saddam Hussein was plotting an attack on western civilization during the month of March 2003.

In all the records and documents and news reports and White House communications I have never heard that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorist that were planning an attack on America or any of our allies. So what do you have that nobody else in the entire world has been able to uncover?

And what did the Pentagon study miss when they of course focused on Al-Qaeda they surely should’ve run across an organization by any other name was Donna saying was tied to. Do you think they did but it’s part of the deep state lie to help the war mongering effort.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.

The liar in chief's Administration said it to get you warmongers all hopped up for war and angry so you would not question why it had to be done on March 17, 2003

''There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq,'' former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002


my question to you is about the timing. What was the threat reheated to international terrorists that forced the March 17 2003 decision to invade.


I know if no threat that fueled Bush’s decision that you supported.

Biden was not aware of any threat abd he wanted to take Saddam out.

​

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.​

He wanted to take Saddam out too if he quit cooperating with inspectors or if he was hiding WMD.

Buden didn’t hear There was a immediate threat linke to terrorists he was acting with directly or indirectly.

So you are lying - you’ve have no evidence Saddam was linked in any way during March 2003 to any terrorist plots to attack western civilization that you can point to.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

When you are saying "at that time" do you mean the Month of March 2003 when Bush decided it was necessary to invade? Just want to be clear.

 

[irosie91]

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.​

Ok----I read it-------so what does it actually SAY? -------nuthin'. As to ".....assured that there is
a government in place that is not likely to reconsittute the menace and threat......" FUGIT ABOUT IT ----Iraq is a shiite shit majoirity nation and will ---left alone, be a BAATHIST \
SLIME puppet of Iran and Russia

 

[Correll]

That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.

So are you therefore confessing that you understand that Bush was lying when they cited Saddam Hussain’s ties to Al-Qaeda as one of the justifications for starting a war on March 17, 2003....

I stopped reading there. That is too much even for you. We were discussing my point that the Iraqis Government supported terrorism.

That you jumped from that to proclaiming a "confession" from me, is you being a lying asshole.


This whole thread is nothing but you trying to make a mountain out of the molehill of overlap between Bush and Trump supporters, despite Trump saying Bush lied.


You are pathetic. AND you don't care about lying into war. You give Lincoln a pass, because you support his war aims.


Probably do the same for Wilson, though you refused to take the bait there.


DITTO FDR.

 

[Correll]

That would be impressive, if I had said that they were supporting AL-QUAEDA.

The liar in chief's Administration said it to get you warmongers all hopped up for war and angry so you would not question why it had to be done on March 17, 2003

''There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq,'' former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002


my question to you is about the timing. What was the threat reheated to international terrorists that forced the March 17 2003 decision to invade.


I know if no threat that fueled Bush’s decision that you supported.

Biden was not aware of any threat abd he wanted to take Saddam out.

​

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.​

He wanted to take Saddam out too if he quit cooperating with inspectors or if he was hiding WMD.

Buden didn’t hear There was a immediate threat linke to terrorists he was acting with directly or indirectly.

So you are lying - you’ve have no evidence Saddam was linked in any way during March 2003 to any terrorist plots to attack western civilization that you can point to.

I made a general statement that they supported terrorists.

It would make sense for you to cite this specific accusation and to ask me, if that was what I meant, or to demand that I be more specific so you could attack my claim.

Not that that would change the fact that I believed it back then, and thus it was part of my analysis, EVEN IF IT WAS WRONG.

That place you get, retarded, is where you argue against my reasoning, decades after the fact, AND THEN ONCE YOU TO YOUR SATISFACTION, challenge it, you declare that is was not valid, in your opinion and then call me a liar for saying it.


NONE OF THAT IS RATIONAL. That is not logical or even sane.


You are insane, and on top of that, you build up asshole behavior, based on your insanity.

 

[Correll]

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

When you are saying "at that time" do you mean the Month of March 2003 when Bush decided it was necessary to invade? Just want to be clear.

nope. A more general time. Think post First Persian Gulf War, forward.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

9/21/01

Bush briefed by intel community that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. [Date the public knew: 11/22/05]

Oct 2001

Rumsfeld sets up own intelligence unit to look for Iraqi links to terrorism. [Date the public knew: 10/24/04]

Feb 2002

DIA intelligence summary notes that Libi’s “confession” lacks details and suggests that he is most likely telling interrogators what he thinks will “retain their interest.” Also states: “Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.” [Date the public knew: 10/26/05]

3/22/02

Downing Street memo: “US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing…We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq…Regime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.” [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]

3/25/02

Downing Street memo: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with Al Qaida…In the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran or North Korea as to justify action.” [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]

May 2002

Primary corroborator of Curveball’s claims that Iraq has mobile weapons labs is judged a liar and Chalabi plant by DIA. A fabricator warning is posted in US intelligence databases. [Date the public knew: 3/28/04]

June 2002

Iraq bombing begins. Military will fly 21,736 sorties and attack 349 targets between now and the start of the war.

9/7/02

Bush claims a new UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no such report.

9/26/02

Classified DIA assessment of Iraq’s chemical weapons concludes there is “no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.” [Date the public knew: 5/30/03]

Dubya missed that one:

9/26/02

In a Rose Garden speech, Bush says: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.”

Did these comments tying Iraq to Al Qaeda make you believe that the Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time? Or did you conduct your own investigation and are now willing to share?

''There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq,'' former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002

9/25/02

“You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”—Bush

12/9/01

Cheney on Meet the Press: “Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists.” Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he’ll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.

9/25/02

Citing Libi intel, Rice says: “High-ranking detainees have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.”

9/27/02

Rumsfeld calls link between Iraq and Al Qaeda “accurate and not debatable.”

9/28/02

Bush’s address to nation: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.”

 

[Correll]

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

9/21/01

Bush briefed by intel community that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. [Date the public knew: 11/22/05]

Oct 2001

Rumsfeld sets up own intelligence unit to look for Iraqi links to terrorism. [Date the public knew: 10/24/04]

Feb 2002

DIA intelligence summary notes that Libi’s “confession” lacks details and suggests that he is most likely telling interrogators what he thinks will “retain their interest.” Also states: “Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.” [Date the public knew: 10/26/05]

3/22/02

Downing Street memo: “US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing…We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq…Regime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.” [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]

3/25/02

Downing Street memo: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with Al Qaida…In the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran or North Korea as to justify action.” [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]

May 2002

Primary corroborator of Curveball’s claims that Iraq has mobile weapons labs is judged a liar and Chalabi plant by DIA. A fabricator warning is posted in US intelligence databases. [Date the public knew: 3/28/04]

June 2002

Iraq bombing begins. Military will fly 21,736 sorties and attack 349 targets between now and the start of the war.

9/7/02

Bush claims a new UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no such report.

9/26/02

Classified DIA assessment of Iraq’s chemical weapons concludes there is “no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.” [Date the public knew: 5/30/03]

Dubya missed that one:

9/26/02

In a Rose Garden speech, Bush says: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.”

Did these comments tying Iraq to Al Qaeda make you believe that the Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time? Or did you conduct your own investigation and are now willing to share?

''There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq,'' former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002

9/25/02

“You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”—Bush

12/9/01

Cheney on Meet the Press: “Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists.” Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he’ll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.

9/25/02

Citing Libi intel, Rice says: “High-ranking detainees have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.”

9/27/02

Rumsfeld calls link between Iraq and Al Qaeda “accurate and not debatable.”

9/28/02

Bush’s address to nation: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.”

Irrelevant spam.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

You made a specific accusation that was used to justify killing half a million Iraqis as an 'honest mistake' so I asked for evidence to back up your claim that while Saddam Hussein was cooperating with UNSC inspectors from November 2002 through March 17 2003 Saddam Hussein was supporting 'terrorism at that time'.

Your response was the typical dodge but in it you implied that you have 'evidence' but would not provide it because you have some way of know that I would "pretend" to disprove it. So to make your conspiracy theory work indefinitely to hide the fact that you don't really have any evidence, you lied that you had evidence.

Why? So you can pretend to disprove it,

So now you dropped your accusation against "the government" of Iraq and just want to say that you supported killing half a million Iraqis on the basis of a general statement that in general the Iraqi people supported terrorists in general while UNMOVIC's 200 inspectors were moving freely about Iraq working in public with all sorts of Iraqi people without harm.

I made a general statement that they supported terrorists.

So when you wrote "The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time." it was based on nothing rather specific about what the Bush regime told you, It was based on nothing else that you can back up with evidence or any credible documentation that you could share. So you were not aware of any active threat or even planning by terrorist groups linked in any way to Saddam Hussein prior to March 17 2003.


What drove you to support invasion when there was no specific threat from Iraq and international terrorist groups during the week preceding March 17, 2003?

Why did it have to happen right there on that date? Why could you not personally give the inspectors more time. As Senator Joe Biden so widely advised.

If you have no logic or reasons behind your hawkish rank and file blind trust on the grave matter of starting a preemptive war of aggression on a weak nation to Bush Rumsfeld Rice Powell Cheney and Ahmad Chalabi, just admit it. You are a non-thinking unprincipled loyalist to the Republican Party no matter what they do.