Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

We disagree whether all possible peaceful solutions were exhausted.

There is no disagreement. You have indicated that you know what ‘exhausting peaceful means to avoid war’ is. And I agree with you

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,

THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".

As you know, we found the truth after the violent means to disarm Iraq that SH had no WMD to turn over.

Based on what we know now, I agree with you that ‘exhausting peaceful means to avoid war’ wouid be giving the experts enough time to agree that SH turned over or destroyed “the bulk of his shit”’

Bush did not give the inspectors the time they needed so it is a lie to claim that Bush exhausted peaceful means to avoid war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What an interesting question. I only mentioned that AND gave a major example over and over, several times.

Your major example was 1939 Germany. In my response to that moronic nonsense I told you Germany was a threat to world peace. And since America is part of the world, Germany was a direct threat to America. That is an undisputed fact.

 

[BS Filter]

I supported war on Iraq, but we should have taken out Iran.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I supported war on Iraq, but we should have taken out Iran.

For what? Neither nation had anything to do with the al Qaeda attacks on September 12, 2001.

 

[BS Filter]

I supported war on Iraq, but we should have taken out Iran.

For what? Neither nation had anything to do with the al Qaeda attacks on September 12, 2001.

Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Do you support that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism.

I support having facts. Thus far in what known as as reality the number one terrorist organization that killed American citizens on US Soil is al Qaeda and then its offspring ISIS. Both were Sunni. Iran put fighters in Iraq and Syria to fight alongside the Obama coalition against ISIS.

The next biggest threat to America is white supremacy Anti-democracy terrorists like the ones that stormed the Capitol on January 6 who were inspired to do so by Donald J Trump. If you are concerned about terrorism I suggest we stop the domestic terrorists first.

Have you joined a military organization that will be invading Iran any time soon. If not why not?

I reject any stupid repeat of sending American ground troops into any Muslim nation to topple any regime ever again in the WAR ON TERROR. I’ll support whatever the United Nations supports in dealing with Iran. Six of ten Americans wanted Bush not to invade Iraq unless with UN Backing. We were right. The 4 of ten who wanted to kill Iraqi civilians to disarm were wrong.

I see you have not learned a fucking thing from the debacle known as the US invasion of Iraq to find WMD.

 

[Correll]

Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.

I am surprised you were not aware the First use of the Blitzkrieg strategy in September 1939 since you must be an admirer of a good white Christian cultural conservative like Mike Pence. who As yuh know Pence just recently survived a lynch mob speckled with American Nazi Trump supporters and white supremacists, and Christian Q-anon cult members because he failed Trump so miserably on January 6 2021.

​

After roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, more than 2,000 airplanes and more than 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939, the British gave Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler an ultimatum: pull out of Poland, or else.​

​

The Invasion of Poland Wasn't Hitler's First Aggression. Here's Why That Move Marked the Beginning of WWII

Roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, 2,000 airplanes and 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939

www.google.com

​

Hitler ignored the demand, and two days later, on Sept. 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war. Thus began World War II, and this weekend Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Poland to mark the anniversary of that event​

Was weak Poland invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was that a military outbreak of fascism that threatened the entire world or not? Was Poland a threat to Germany when the BLITZKIEG was launched by Adolp Hitler

Was weak Iraq invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was Iraq (with 200 UN INSPECTORS On the ground) a threat to its neighbors or to the rest of the world at that time? Was IRAQ a threat to The UNITED STATES of AMERICA when the March 2003 BLITZKIEG was launched by GEORGE W BUSH into Iraq?

The only thing you excel at @Correl cheapening language and farting from your brain.

You made a point. That Iraq was not a threat to our nation when we decided to invade.

My counter point was that nazi german was not a threat to us when we declared war on them.

Your attempt at rebuttal, did not contradict my point at all.


It did contain quite a bit of partisan and racist hate.


My point stands. Your point about Iraq not being a threat to us, is refuted.



A nation being a direct threat to you, is not a requirement for a Just War.


DO you have the integrity and moral courage to admit that point?



lol!!! That was a joke. Of course you do not.

Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone when Bush invaded, but its what Bibi wanted.

Bush had his reasons for invading Iraq. They were many and varied. That you are focused on what Bibi wanted is about you, not Bush, not Bush's or Trump's supporters.

They planned the invasion of Iraq before Bush junior was elected. Operation Mass Appeal was set up to demonize Saddam and sell the war in 1997-1998.. This is what Israel demanded in Clean Break Strategy.

There were people that supported the policy of war with Iraq before George W Bush was elected.


You seem to be implying that the fact that they wanted something that the leader of Israel wanted, is relevant, but you are not saying why.

Do you think that just saying "jew" at me, a bunch is undermining my argument somehow?

 

[surada]

Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.

I am surprised you were not aware the First use of the Blitzkrieg strategy in September 1939 since you must be an admirer of a good white Christian cultural conservative like Mike Pence. who As yuh know Pence just recently survived a lynch mob speckled with American Nazi Trump supporters and white supremacists, and Christian Q-anon cult members because he failed Trump so miserably on January 6 2021.

​

After roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, more than 2,000 airplanes and more than 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939, the British gave Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler an ultimatum: pull out of Poland, or else.​

​

The Invasion of Poland Wasn't Hitler's First Aggression. Here's Why That Move Marked the Beginning of WWII

Roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, 2,000 airplanes and 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939

www.google.com

​

Hitler ignored the demand, and two days later, on Sept. 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war. Thus began World War II, and this weekend Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Poland to mark the anniversary of that event​

Was weak Poland invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was that a military outbreak of fascism that threatened the entire world or not? Was Poland a threat to Germany when the BLITZKIEG was launched by Adolp Hitler

Was weak Iraq invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was Iraq (with 200 UN INSPECTORS On the ground) a threat to its neighbors or to the rest of the world at that time? Was IRAQ a threat to The UNITED STATES of AMERICA when the March 2003 BLITZKIEG was launched by GEORGE W BUSH into Iraq?

The only thing you excel at @Correl cheapening language and farting from your brain.

You made a point. That Iraq was not a threat to our nation when we decided to invade.

My counter point was that nazi german was not a threat to us when we declared war on them.

Your attempt at rebuttal, did not contradict my point at all.


It did contain quite a bit of partisan and racist hate.


My point stands. Your point about Iraq not being a threat to us, is refuted.



A nation being a direct threat to you, is not a requirement for a Just War.


DO you have the integrity and moral courage to admit that point?



lol!!! That was a joke. Of course you do not.

Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone when Bush invaded, but its what Bibi wanted.

Bush had his reasons for invading Iraq. They were many and varied. That you are focused on what Bibi wanted is about you, not Bush, not Bush's or Trump's supporters.

They planned the invasion of Iraq before Bush junior was elected. Operation Mass Appeal was set up to demonize Saddam and sell the war in 1997-1998.. This is what Israel demanded in Clean Break Strategy.

There were people that supported the policy of war with Iraq before George W Bush was elected.


You seem to be implying that the fact that they wanted something that the leader of Israel wanted, is relevant, but you are not saying why.

Do you think that just saying "jew" at me, a bunch is undermining my argument somehow?

Yes, of course it was the centerpiece of Bibi's Clean Break Strategy ..

Read it and then read the 1998 PNAC letter to Bill Clinton.. Take note of the dual citizen signatories .. Bush junior went on to hire many of them in his administration.

Why do you think the Brits set up Operation Mass Appeal. What buffoonery and it 's like the US never even saw it. Lazy or stupid???

They even bought into that Saudi Booze Wars idiocy.. The American expats laughed till they slit their sides.

 

[Correll]

But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.

That is not a reply to what was asked.

Facts don’t give a shit if a Trump supporter believed them. Do you dispute that the following description of what happened and said true and accurate

I don’t care if you believe or disbelieve what the participants said.


Fact #1

W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.

FACT #2

It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming a Iraq peacefully.

The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion? Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.

Regarding FACT 2 I am asking your that because you specifically lied when you wrote.

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

It was not my opinion that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully. That is a fact. The entire 1441 inspection process up to Shock Awe and Blitzkrieg was peaceful. Do you dispute that?

Yes, I do. ON 3 levels.


1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.

2. The inspectors were NOT peacefully disarming Iraq. The WMDs, we now know, were already destroyed. Thus, the claim that they were doing it, was not true. It was already done. Just not properly documented, so it was not known to have been done.

3. And any discussion of motives or decision making, you have to "care" what people believed. If someone poisoned a pie and you did not know that, and you gave it to someone, thinking it was good food, you are not the murderer. Only an asshole would deny that you must judge people's actions, in light of what they know, or think that they know.

 

[Correll]

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

This is not my opinion. This is a fact:

FACT #1

W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.

FACT #2

It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming Iraq peacefully.

Do you dispute Fact #1 in any way?


Do you dispute Fact #2 in any way? The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion? Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.

I see that President Bush said something.

I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,

THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".


But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative. Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.

Saddam didn't have any WMDs.. He also didn't want Iran to know how utterly crippled Iraq was.

Do you understand that that is not relevant?

 

[Correll]

I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.

Bush did when he went to the UNSC, with the draft Resolution that became 1441 to give SH a final opportunity to comply.

Every nation on the Security Council agreed that from the unanimous vote in the affirmative the inspection chiefs on nuclear, biological and chemical proscribed weapons would go forth to see if SH would be disarmed peacefully or not.

Is that fact or is it not fact?

I don’t care that you have an opinion that SH could not be trusted or if you think W was being tricky with the world so he could get Blair to help him unilaterally disarm Iraq by the killing civilians means rather than the peaceful means.

I don’t care if you believe in all that.

The question to you is: did W go to the UN, get 1441 passed which had as its goal to try to disarm Iraq peacefully? Or did it none if that happen? Stop dancing.

That is some serious begging the question fallacy.

1. Your dismissal of my belief that Saddam could not be trusted to truly cooperate, does not change that fact that that was something I believed then and it was a part of my thought process that led me to support war.

2. "By killing civilians"? God was an ass you are.

3. The UN can go fuck itself for all I care.

 

[Correll]

But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.

That is not what you were asked. Did the 1441 chief weapons inspectors evaluate and report that SH was indeed cooperating prior to Bush‘s decision to invade?

Colin Powell stated on the ABC News THIS WEEK SHOW between Christmas and NEW Years three months before the Shock Awe and Blitzkrieg that SH was cooperating and that war was not inevitable.

Powell’s opinion on that matter has value. Yours and mine had no value whatsoever at the time. Our opinions matter now based upon verification of all the facts.

Saddam knew where his wmds were. Saddam cooperating would have been Saddam taking the inspectors to his weapons so they could see them being destroyed.

Powell being satisfied that Saddam was "cooperating" with inspectors by letting them travel around and look for shit, was not convincing.

 

[Correll]

Does it? I can think of several scenarios easily where that would not be true.

Well, tell us about them?

Sorry, you cut EVERYTHING, and it was several days before I had a chance to reply. I don't recall exactly what this was in reference to. It has been a busy few days. Very fun.

 

[surada]

I supported war on Iraq, but we should have taken out Iran.

Iran wasn't crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.. Invading Iran would make Iraq look like a Sunday school picnic. Americans are so damned ignorant about the Middle East.

 

[Correll]

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,

Do you really mean that now in your exact words

“prior to the war” and if “and the experts agreed” ??

THEN YOU would have been convinced that he SH had been "disarmed".

Absolutely positively you would have agreed that it was absolutely ok with you that SH remain the dictator in Iraq. And that means starting a war to “nation build” would be canceled? Shams Amin, her two brothers and her father would not have had a bunker buster dropped on them and her mother would not become without a family and husband to care for her as her better life was to go on living in the Christian culture democracy that Dick Cheney was being so kind to bomb her into being blessed with?

Is that your position now?

No. I meant what I said. That that would have convinced me that he was disarmed and that he had cooperated.

That would not mean that it was OK with me that Saddam would remain dictator.


That would have meant, imo, that Bush would have been politically forced to NOT invade.


Please pretend that I have inserted a bunch of appeal to emotion shit, about the negative effects of THAT policy, they way you constantly pepper your posts with. I can't be bothered to actually BE that lame, but it would serve you right to have to put up with such idiocy.

 

[surada]

But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.

That is not what you were asked. Did the 1441 chief weapons inspectors evaluate and report that SH was indeed cooperating prior to Bush‘s decision to invade?

Colin Powell stated on the ABC News THIS WEEK SHOW between Christmas and NEW Years three months before the Shock Awe and Blitzkrieg that SH was cooperating and that war was not inevitable.

Powell’s opinion on that matter has value. Yours and mine had no value whatsoever at the time. Our opinions matter now based upon verification of all the facts.

Saddam knew where his wmds were. Saddam cooperating would have been Saddam taking the inspectors to his weapons so they could see them being destroyed.

Powell being satisfied that Saddam was "cooperating" with inspectors by letting them travel around and look for shit, was not convincing.

Yeah Powell was convincing.. Are you Israeli or something? I have never seen such wilfull ignorance.

 

[Correll]

Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.

I was not talking about statements regarding a prediction whether or whether not SH would cooperate.

I was asking you whether or not it was a fact that Dr. Hans Blix had reported to the United Nations Security Council prior to the start of the war that SH was cooperating.

Do you accept as a matter of fact that Dr. Hans Blix stated prior to the war that SH was cooperating. In fact he said that SH was proactively cooperating prior to the invasion.

YES OR NO?

Sorry, you cut all the context of the comment. And I've been clear that I did not find the un inspectors credible, so your obsession with their statements is irrelevant.

 

[surada]

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,

Do you really mean that now in your exact words

“prior to the war” and if “and the experts agreed” ??

THEN YOU would have been convinced that he SH had been "disarmed".

Absolutely positively you would have agreed that it was absolutely ok with you that SH remain the dictator in Iraq. And that means starting a war to “nation build” would be canceled? Shams Amin, her two brothers and her father would not have had a bunker buster dropped on them and her mother would not become without a family and husband to care for her as her better life was to go on living in the Christian culture democracy that Dick Cheney was being so kind to bomb her into being blessed with?

Is that your position now?

No. I meant what I said. That that would have convinced me that he was disarmed and that he had cooperated.

That would not mean that it was OK with me that Saddam would remain dictator.


That would have meant, imo, that Bush would have been politically forced to NOT invade.


Please pretend that I have inserted a bunch of appeal to emotion shit, about the negative effects of THAT policy, they way you constantly pepper your posts with. I can't be bothered to actually BE that lame, but it would serve you right to have to put up with such idiocy.

You're hopeless. The US couldn't find any WMDs so they came up with another fantastic story about how Saddam was trucking his weapons back and forth between Sudan and Syria. I thought I'd die laughing.

 

[Correll]

Silly words games to dodge the fact t

How is asking you if you agree that the Confederates started the CIVIL WAR when they attacked and captured Fort Sumter is a silly word game.

Because it ignores the topic of the discussion, about how Lincolns LIES, led to war, and he knew they would.


You want to focus on the trees, to avoid looking at the forest.


It is how you are avoiding the fact that I am kicking your ass.

 

[Correll]

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

Which statement should we believe?

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,

THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".

You said the experts would lie to prevent war didn’t you. How would know if the experts were lying or telling the truth?

If I was you, I would assume it, and then start calling it a "fact" and obsessive spout historical trivia at people that dared to disagree. Oh, and insult them and constantly post shit about the terrible human cost of the policies they supported, as though they didn't know, because....


well for some reason.