Spineless Trump seeks good relationship with Putin's Russia after Russia votes at UN against Israel

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16356823

Stop living in the past. Wars happen. Saddam was BEGGING for it. And eventually he got it.

You are an idiot. Wars don't just 'happen'. Someone with military means or superior military means at their disposal must "DECIDE" to start a war of offensive aggression and invasion of a sovereign nation.

That is exactly what Bush did after March 7 2003. He decided to believe some uncited intelligence source without verification that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors. So he started a war and quagmire.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16345392

Because it was thus still a Just War. Those deaths were thus, not for nothing.

What gives you the right to decide that Iraqis lost their lives for a greater cause in a Just War launched by a foreign power on their own soil based on false claims about WMD?

You are a sick demented warmonger.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16345392

So, now you are reading minds, though the Mists of Time. COol.

I'm not reading Bush's mind. I was repeating what he said to announce starting a war on March 17, 2003. He told you and me that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16356851

Your conclusion is that other reasons not being mentioned, means they don't exist.

No idiot. Other reasons (threats that could justify war) did not exist. Their non-existence is why no one mentioned them. It's why Bush did not mention them then and you can't mention them now.

You would be a laughingstock if you write down something other than the threat from WMD as a threat unto itself that could justify starting an invasion of a sovereign nation and destroying its government and military in order to start over.

You've been lying for liar Bush so long you have lost all touch with reality,

Except that those other reasons were publicly debated for months. YOu are the silly one here.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16356987

But COULD NOT possibly have been incompetent.

Are you trying to say that Bush could not possibly have been incompetent when he offered no invasion thus allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power if the WMD issue was resolved within ten days?


Do you think the offer was an act of incompetence by Bush.


That makes no sense.

It is incomprehensible that Bush set his own deadline for when inspectors must be finished. That timeline was entirely up to the full voting UNSC.

If war was not NESSECARY on March 7 it certainly could have not been NECESSARY on March 17.

That was Bush's incomprehensible decision and oft told lie that he would engage in war only as a last resort hoping to disarm Iraq of WMD peacefully.

Iraq had no WMD in March 2003.

Your argument is that Bush could NOT have made the offer he made if other reasons existed.

ONE of my points was that sure he could have, if he was incompetent.

It is pretty sad that you are unable to even understand my point.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16356851

This is a way of avoiding discussing real issues, honestly and seriously.

You cannot cite one other threat from Iraq besides WMD to our national security that has been cited by Bush as such an existential threat that he was forced to choose war as a last resort and tell the inspectors they must leave.

Or, as I have repeatedly said, I WILL NOT, because your opinion on them does not change the fact that they were part of the discussion during the lead up to the war, which was the point is referring to them.


Your agreement with them, or disagreement is not relevant.

NOte how you cannot distinguish between what you assume, which is always what paints your enemies in a bad light, and a hard fact.



Ironically, this is EXACTLY the type of thinking that led to the decision to invade. Except that I don't think Bush and company were nearly as bad as you.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16356851

This is a way of avoiding discussing real issues, honestly and seriously.

You cannot cite one other threat from Iraq besides WMD to our national security that has been cited by Bush as such an existential threat that he was forced to choose war as a last resort and tell the inspectors they must leave.

NOte the way you dismiss all possibilities that don't support you pre arrived at conclusion.

For example, I just just be a jerk, and enjoy jerking you around.


Is that not possible in your mind, that I could be a jerk?

Because your above statement CATEGORICALLY states that there can be ONLY ONE reason I have not cited the many other reasons, ie that I CAN'T.

You liberals have incredibly closed minds.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345392

Because it was thus still a Just War. Those deaths were thus, not for nothing.

What gives you the right to decide that Iraqis lost their lives for a greater cause in a Just War launched by a foreign power on their own soil based on false claims about WMD?

You are a sick demented warmonger.

Everyone has a right to an opinion.

Mine is based on the traditional Western view of Just War.

Your is based on your partisan hatred of the Right, and traditional America.

You are just an asshole.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16356823

Stop living in the past. Wars happen. Saddam was BEGGING for it. And eventually he got it.

You are an idiot. Wars don't just 'happen'. Someone with military means or superior military means at their disposal must "DECIDE" to start a war of offensive aggression and invasion of a sovereign nation.

That is exactly what Bush did after March 7 2003. He decided to believe some uncited intelligence source without verification that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors. So he started a war and quagmire.

If Saddam hadn't spent the last ten years BEGGING for another war, Bush would not have had the option of waging war on Saddam.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345392

So, now you are reading minds, though the Mists of Time. COol.

I'm not reading Bush's mind. I was repeating what he said to announce starting a war on March 17, 2003. He told you and me that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors.

Sorry, you cut that out of all context. I'm not sure what exactly you said that led me to say that, now.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16366238

Or, as I have repeatedly said, I WILL NOT, because your opinion on them does not change the fact that they were part of the discussion during the lead up to the war, which was the point is referring to them.

There were no other threats other than WMD that could have justified Bush's lone decision to invade Iraq after March 7 2003. Whatever you think was debated earlier had nothing to do with how Bush justified invading Iraq.

There was no debate after March 7, 2003 after Bush publically dismissed any other threat and was ready to avoid war if the WMD threat ceased to exist as validated by UN inspectors.

But 10 days later Bush and some top secret intelligence agencies were allegedly convinced that they had evidence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from those inspectors.

Very strange that Bush had no such Intel on March 7 willing to avoid war, but scrounged it up to tell the public 10 days later that he had it so he was forced to choose invasion and war as a last resort.

You can't name a threat other than WMD that Bush cited to justify starting a war of aggression against Iraq on March 17, 2003.

You deferral to an earlier debate is absurd. If threats beside WMD existed earlier Bush could gave invaded Iraq without going to the UN and getting Resolution 1441 passed with his approval.

1441 was about WMD and nothing else. The inspectors were about WMD and nothing else.

What did Sec Powell mean when he said the first Sunday in January on national TV that Iraq was cooperating and war was not inevitable.

Was he lying? Why did he not mention other threats.

Powell told a Senate committee that the AUMF being drafted was solely about the threat of WMD.

So include that in your earlier debate, Republican warmonger. The WMD issue won that debate. Nothing else.

That's why you refuse to name any other threat.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16345392

So, now you are reading minds, though the Mists of Time. COol.

I'm not reading Bush's mind. I was repeating what he said to announce starting a war on March 17, 2003. He told you and me that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors.

Sorry, you cut that out of all context. I'm not sure what exactly you said that led me to say that, now.

You can click on both messages to refresh your poor memory.

And Trumps statement about Bush lying us into Iraq will put him at odds with his other statements to seize Iraq's oil.

Reparations to Iraq? After vowing during the campaign to take Iraq's oil while also admitting the 2003 invasion was a mistake and sold through lies, Trump's leadership will soon be tested on Iraq when he figures out who al- Abadi is.

Iraqi PM wants full disclosure about 2003 US-led invasion
Published January 18, 2017
Associated Press

.
Al-Abadi says the invasion in fact unleashed instability and "led to chaos" that persists to this day.

He added that America's involvement in Iraq opened the doors for "all terrorist groups from all over the world to enter" the country — something Iraqis "paid dearly" for.

The Iraqi premier — in a veiled message to the incoming Trump administration — also said he hopes that "Iraqis will be compensated for the tragedies and catastrophes they endured."

Iraqi PM wants full disclosure about 2003 US-led invasion


So how will America First leadership deal with al-Abadi?

Surely Iraq is owed something for the disaster and devastation and influx of terrorists that the US invasion based on lies has sown upon the suffering people in Iraq and now Syria.


I would like to see full disclosure as well. How about you. Can you only defend you beloved Bush and Cheney when everything they actually knew about WMD being hidden in Iraq is shrouded in secrecy.

Trump did say Bush lied to invade Iraq.

He is the president now. Will he say he disagrees with himself.

Part of making America Great again should be owning up to Bush's lies about the need to Invade Iraq.

Trump should do that.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16366238

Or, as I have repeatedly said, I WILL NOT, because your opinion on them does not change the fact that they were part of the discussion during the lead up to the war, which was the point is referring to them.

There were no other threats other than WMD that could have justified Bush's lone decision to invade Iraq after March 7 2003. Whatever you think was debated earlier had nothing to do with how Bush justified invading Iraq.

There was no debate after March 7, 2003 after Bush publically dismissed any other threat and was ready to avoid war if the WMD threat ceased to exist as validated by UN inspectors.

But 10 days later Bush and some top secret intelligence agencies were allegedly convinced that they had evidence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from those inspectors.

Very strange that Bush had no such Intel on March 7 willing to avoid war, but scrounged it up to tell the public 10 days later that he had it so he was forced to choose invasion and war as a last resort.

You can't name a threat other than WMD that Bush cited to justify starting a war of aggression against Iraq on March 17, 2003.

You deferral to an earlier debate is absurd. If threats beside WMD existed earlier Bush could gave invaded Iraq without going to the UN and getting Resolution 1441 passed with his approval.

1441 was about WMD and nothing else. The inspectors were about WMD and nothing else.

What did Sec Powell mean when he said the first Sunday in January on national TV that Iraq was cooperating and war was not inevitable.

Was he lying? Why did he not mention other threats.

Powell told a Senate committee that the AUMF being drafted was solely about the threat of WMD.

So include that in your earlier debate, Republican warmonger. The WMD issue won that debate. Nothing else.

That's why you refuse to name any other threat.

I've addressed all of that repeatedly. You refuse to honestly or serious address my counter points.

YOu are now engaged in the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


This is for you.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345392

So, now you are reading minds, though the Mists of Time. COol.

I'm not reading Bush's mind. I was repeating what he said to announce starting a war on March 17, 2003. He told you and me that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors.

Sorry, you cut that out of all context. I'm not sure what exactly you said that led me to say that, now.

You can click on both messages to refresh your poor memory.

And Trumps statement about Bush lying us into Iraq will put him at odds with his other statements to seize Iraq's oil.

Reparations to Iraq? After vowing during the campaign to take Iraq's oil while also admitting the 2003 invasion was a mistake and sold through lies, Trump's leadership will soon be tested on Iraq when he figures out who al- Abadi is.

Iraqi PM wants full disclosure about 2003 US-led invasion
Published January 18, 2017
Associated Press

.
Al-Abadi says the invasion in fact unleashed instability and "led to chaos" that persists to this day.

He added that America's involvement in Iraq opened the doors for "all terrorist groups from all over the world to enter" the country — something Iraqis "paid dearly" for.

The Iraqi premier — in a veiled message to the incoming Trump administration — also said he hopes that "Iraqis will be compensated for the tragedies and catastrophes they endured."

Iraqi PM wants full disclosure about 2003 US-led invasion


So how will America First leadership deal with al-Abadi?

Surely Iraq is owed something for the disaster and devastation and influx of terrorists that the US invasion based on lies has sown upon the suffering people in Iraq and now Syria.


I would like to see full disclosure as well. How about you. Can you only defend you beloved Bush and Cheney when everything the actually knew about WMD being hidden in Iraq is shrouded in secrecy.

Trump did say Bush lied to invade Iraq.

He is the president now. Will he say he disagrees with himself.

Part of making America Great again should be owning up to Bush's lies about the need to Invade Iraq.

Trump should do that.

LOL!!!

What a load of crap.

How should Trump deal with that? Ignore it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I've addressed all of that repeatedly.

You have addressed nothing.

Now Trump has made it US policy to steal Iraq's oil and his press secretary backed it up.

Our troops are at greater risk for Trump's war criminal threat to sieze Iraq's oil at the CIA.

We are partnered with Iraqis in the ongoing military advance against ISIS.

Trump just gave ISIS a new recruiting tool why it would be necessary to kill US troops helping in Iraq because according to their Commander in Chief they may get the chance to seize Iraq's oil to make up for not seizing it before.

You are not only a warmonger you are supporting a war criminal wannabe.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16366501

How should Trump deal with that? Ignore it.

Iraq is our partner in defeating ISIS. Our troops and pilots are over there. Ignore it? WTF?

Ignore where our troops are deployed at high risk. Risk that Trump just made higher with the threat to sieze Iraq's out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16366481

This is for you.

Certainly not for me. Only a dumbass would have voted for a comic book character and put that stupid assed photo up.

You gave a sickness that is not good for the health of a freedom loving America.

 

[namvet]

somebody say UN?? a bill's been inro'd to get us out of the UN. Trump needs to bird dog this one

 

[NotfooledbyW]

namvet, post: 16390573

somebody say UN?? a bill's been inro'd to get us out of the UN. Trump needs to bird dog this one

Do you think Trump should send in US troops to take Iraq's oil since we didn't steal it while we had 150,000 Troops there?

We are never getting out of the UN. Give up our Veto power. They'd have to take another country in with Veto power. Egypt, India, or Venezuela?

The UN would have saved the lives over four thousand Americans who served in combat iin Iraq. Fatalities and injuries would not have struck so many had Bush allowed the UN inspectors to work with cooperating Iraq for a few more months.,

 

[namvet]

namvet, post: 16390573

somebody say UN?? a bill's been inro'd to get us out of the UN. Trump needs to bird dog this one

Do you think Trump should send in US troops to take Iraq's oil since we didn't steal it while we had 150,000 Troops there?

We are never getting out of the UN. Give up our Veto power. They'd have to take another country in with Veto power. Egypt, India, or Venezuela?

The UN would have saved the lives over four thousand Americans who served in combat iin Iraq. Fatalities and injuries would not have struck so many had Bush allowed the UN inspectors to work with cooperating Iraq for a few more months.,

Its a money making terrorist scam/ OUT now

and cut off ALL foreign aid