Trump: Middle East Would Be Better Off With Saddam, Gaddafi

[Correll]

Trump usED third world labor.

HIs policy platform is about changing the rules to fight that.

HIllary is all about continuing the policy of allowing employers to use Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


There is nothing crazy about tariffs.

Unless you believe those same economists that predicted that Free Trade would make US industry more competitive and lead to a rebound in jobs and wages.

I believe history which shows they are bad. Take your steel tariff. It cost the US more manufacturing jobs than the steel industry employs. Bad idea. But if you have some support for them let's see it.

Your support for that claim was many years after the fact. And yet you used it, and ignored when I pointed that out originally.

Nation after nation has rebuilt themselves or built themselves on the vast wealth we have been fountaining all over the rest of the world, while our working class and middle class have been getting fucked, for generations now.


Somehow having a massive trade surplus benefited them while having a massive trade deficit greatly harmed US.

The natural conclusion is that if we reduce or reverse the trends in trade surplus/deficits, that we will reverse the trends for the working and middle class here.

Of course it was years after the fact. That is how you study the results of economic changes. How dumb are you?

Do you have any links supporting your crazy?

THe link I posted showed that the steel companies in question survived and thus the jobs of those factories were saved.


A study, was it 7 years later? will be influenced by other factors that might not have anything to do with a certain policy.


BTW, calling me names is not actually supporting your argument. lt is just you being a dick.

FYI.

Yes seven years later we have accurate data and can study the effects of the tariff. That's how studies work...

Actually in a uncontrolled environment with literally millions of other factors that cannot be accounted for, that is NOT how studies work.

 

[Brain357]

I believe history which shows they are bad. Take your steel tariff. It cost the US more manufacturing jobs than the steel industry employs. Bad idea. But if you have some support for them let's see it.

Your support for that claim was many years after the fact. And yet you used it, and ignored when I pointed that out originally.

Nation after nation has rebuilt themselves or built themselves on the vast wealth we have been fountaining all over the rest of the world, while our working class and middle class have been getting fucked, for generations now.


Somehow having a massive trade surplus benefited them while having a massive trade deficit greatly harmed US.

The natural conclusion is that if we reduce or reverse the trends in trade surplus/deficits, that we will reverse the trends for the working and middle class here.

Of course it was years after the fact. That is how you study the results of economic changes. How dumb are you?

Do you have any links supporting your crazy?

THe link I posted showed that the steel companies in question survived and thus the jobs of those factories were saved.


A study, was it 7 years later? will be influenced by other factors that might not have anything to do with a certain policy.


BTW, calling me names is not actually supporting your argument. lt is just you being a dick.

FYI.

Yes seven years later we have accurate data and can study the effects of the tariff. That's how studies work...

Actually in a uncontrolled environment with literally millions of other factors that cannot be accounted for, that is NOT how studies work.

Really? How do you do a study like this before unemployment numbers are out? It has to be done after we have accurate data.

If you want the government to dictate wages a min wage increase is a much better option. A tariff is a tax on consumers and only guarantees consumers pay more making them poorer. Min wage guarantees wage increases. Since you are throwing out the free market why not go to a min wage increase?

 

[Correll]

Your support for that claim was many years after the fact. And yet you used it, and ignored when I pointed that out originally.

Nation after nation has rebuilt themselves or built themselves on the vast wealth we have been fountaining all over the rest of the world, while our working class and middle class have been getting fucked, for generations now.


Somehow having a massive trade surplus benefited them while having a massive trade deficit greatly harmed US.

The natural conclusion is that if we reduce or reverse the trends in trade surplus/deficits, that we will reverse the trends for the working and middle class here.

Of course it was years after the fact. That is how you study the results of economic changes. How dumb are you?

Do you have any links supporting your crazy?

THe link I posted showed that the steel companies in question survived and thus the jobs of those factories were saved.


A study, was it 7 years later? will be influenced by other factors that might not have anything to do with a certain policy.


BTW, calling me names is not actually supporting your argument. lt is just you being a dick.

FYI.

Yes seven years later we have accurate data and can study the effects of the tariff. That's how studies work...

Actually in a uncontrolled environment with literally millions of other factors that cannot be accounted for, that is NOT how studies work.

Really? How do you do a study like this before unemployment numbers are out? It has to be done after we have accurate data.

With great difficulty, if at all.

If you want the government to dictate wages a min wage increase is a much better option. A tariff is a tax on consumers and only guarantees consumers pay more making them poorer. Min wage guarantees wage increases. Since you are throwing out the free market why not go to a min wage increase?

Min wage increases mostly impact min wage earners.

I want to see overall improvement in wages, up and down the pay scale.

I want to see more wealth flowing INTO the country as a whole.

I want to see the nation, as a whole, improving, not just the lowest earners.

And you can save your Free Market Rhetoric for a issue where it is relevant. Our current situation is a result of government policy here and abroad.

 

[Brain357]

Of course it was years after the fact. That is how you study the results of economic changes. How dumb are you?

Do you have any links supporting your crazy?

THe link I posted showed that the steel companies in question survived and thus the jobs of those factories were saved.


A study, was it 7 years later? will be influenced by other factors that might not have anything to do with a certain policy.


BTW, calling me names is not actually supporting your argument. lt is just you being a dick.

FYI.

Yes seven years later we have accurate data and can study the effects of the tariff. That's how studies work...

Actually in a uncontrolled environment with literally millions of other factors that cannot be accounted for, that is NOT how studies work.

Really? How do you do a study like this before unemployment numbers are out? It has to be done after we have accurate data.

With great difficulty, if at all.

If you want the government to dictate wages a min wage increase is a much better option. A tariff is a tax on consumers and only guarantees consumers pay more making them poorer. Min wage guarantees wage increases. Since you are throwing out the free market why not go to a min wage increase?

Min wage increases mostly impact min wage earners.

I want to see overall improvement in wages, up and down the pay scale.

I want to see more wealth flowing INTO the country as a whole.

I want to see the nation, as a whole, improving, not just the lowest earners.

And you can save your Free Market Rhetoric for a issue where it is relevant. Our current situation is a result of government policy here and abroad.

You have zero evidence a tariff will do that. In fact historically it does the opposite. A min wage increase guarantees higher wages. When the bottom goes up wages for those above will also increase. Tariffs just guarantee we pay more for goods. Where is your evidence it will increase wages or do any of your claims?

 

[Correll]

THe link I posted showed that the steel companies in question survived and thus the jobs of those factories were saved.


A study, was it 7 years later? will be influenced by other factors that might not have anything to do with a certain policy.


BTW, calling me names is not actually supporting your argument. lt is just you being a dick.

FYI.

Yes seven years later we have accurate data and can study the effects of the tariff. That's how studies work...

Actually in a uncontrolled environment with literally millions of other factors that cannot be accounted for, that is NOT how studies work.

Really? How do you do a study like this before unemployment numbers are out? It has to be done after we have accurate data.

With great difficulty, if at all.

If you want the government to dictate wages a min wage increase is a much better option. A tariff is a tax on consumers and only guarantees consumers pay more making them poorer. Min wage guarantees wage increases. Since you are throwing out the free market why not go to a min wage increase?

Min wage increases mostly impact min wage earners.

I want to see overall improvement in wages, up and down the pay scale.

I want to see more wealth flowing INTO the country as a whole.

I want to see the nation, as a whole, improving, not just the lowest earners.

And you can save your Free Market Rhetoric for a issue where it is relevant. Our current situation is a result of government policy here and abroad.

You have zero evidence a tariff will do that. In fact historically it does the opposite. A min wage increase guarantees higher wages. When the bottom goes up wages for those above will also increase. Tariffs just guarantee we pay more for goods. Where is your evidence it will increase wages or do any of your claims?

History? We grew into the industrial giant we are today behind high tariff walls.

 

[Brain357]

Yes seven years later we have accurate data and can study the effects of the tariff. That's how studies work...

Actually in a uncontrolled environment with literally millions of other factors that cannot be accounted for, that is NOT how studies work.

Really? How do you do a study like this before unemployment numbers are out? It has to be done after we have accurate data.

With great difficulty, if at all.

If you want the government to dictate wages a min wage increase is a much better option. A tariff is a tax on consumers and only guarantees consumers pay more making them poorer. Min wage guarantees wage increases. Since you are throwing out the free market why not go to a min wage increase?

Min wage increases mostly impact min wage earners.

I want to see overall improvement in wages, up and down the pay scale.

I want to see more wealth flowing INTO the country as a whole.

I want to see the nation, as a whole, improving, not just the lowest earners.

And you can save your Free Market Rhetoric for a issue where it is relevant. Our current situation is a result of government policy here and abroad.

You have zero evidence a tariff will do that. In fact historically it does the opposite. A min wage increase guarantees higher wages. When the bottom goes up wages for those above will also increase. Tariffs just guarantee we pay more for goods. Where is your evidence it will increase wages or do any of your claims?

History? We grew into the industrial giant we are today behind high tariff walls.

Please link some specific tariff wins.

Here is more bad:

Third, it’s highly unlikely the Trump tariff would lead to a significant increase in U.S. manufacturing. Sure, a few directly competitive U.S. companies might benefit from that sweet, sweet import protection (by being able to milk U.S. consumers for more money), but the far more likely result is trade diversion—i.e., imports would shift from China to other (more expensive) foreign countries like Vietnam, India, or Mexico.

This is exactly what happened when the United States imposed tariffs on Chinese tires, and it’s a very common result of U.S. anti-dumping and CVD cases. In the tires case, for example, U.S. consumers and importing companies suffered greatly, while U.S. tire manufacturers didn’t improve at all. That case didn’t even involve WTO-sanctioned retaliation against U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers.

Everything Trump Says About Trade With China Is Wrong

 

[paulitician]

'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. The U.S. has no right to declare it on any nation. The U.S. and its allies are responsible for the horrific carnage we're seeing in the Middle East. Most Americans refuse to acknowledge that, but it is the reality.

In fact, in the case of Iraq especially, leaders in the U.S. and allied nations should have stood trial for crimes against humanity. The only reason it hasn't happened, is because the U.S./West owns the international court system. They don't get prosecuted for war crimes. It's a rigged system. So Trump is right for the most part. The constant U.S. meddling has created so much bloody carnage and chaos over there.

The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't. And like i said, the only reason U.S. and allied leaders weren't tried for crimes against humanity, is that they own the international court system. Any other nation and its leaders committing such atrocities, would have been arrested and stood trial. The U.S. and its allies are not held accountable. They don't stand trial for War Crimes. It is a rigged system.

 

[Correll]

Actually in a uncontrolled environment with literally millions of other factors that cannot be accounted for, that is NOT how studies work.

Really? How do you do a study like this before unemployment numbers are out? It has to be done after we have accurate data.

With great difficulty, if at all.

If you want the government to dictate wages a min wage increase is a much better option. A tariff is a tax on consumers and only guarantees consumers pay more making them poorer. Min wage guarantees wage increases. Since you are throwing out the free market why not go to a min wage increase?

Min wage increases mostly impact min wage earners.

I want to see overall improvement in wages, up and down the pay scale.

I want to see more wealth flowing INTO the country as a whole.

I want to see the nation, as a whole, improving, not just the lowest earners.

And you can save your Free Market Rhetoric for a issue where it is relevant. Our current situation is a result of government policy here and abroad.

You have zero evidence a tariff will do that. In fact historically it does the opposite. A min wage increase guarantees higher wages. When the bottom goes up wages for those above will also increase. Tariffs just guarantee we pay more for goods. Where is your evidence it will increase wages or do any of your claims?

History? We grew into the industrial giant we are today behind high tariff walls.

Please link some specific tariff wins.

A moment ago you were talking about "historically". I responded with an historical claim.

You ignored that and moved the goal posts.

My point stands.

We grew into the industrial giant we are today behind high tariff walls.

Here is more bad:

Third, it’s highly unlikely the Trump tariff would lead to a significant increase in U.S. manufacturing. Sure, a few directly competitive U.S. companies might benefit from that sweet, sweet import protection (by being able to milk U.S. consumers for more money), but the far more likely result is trade diversion—i.e., imports would shift from China to other (more expensive) foreign countries like Vietnam, India, or Mexico.

This is exactly what happened when the United States imposed tariffs on Chinese tires, and it’s a very common result of U.S. anti-dumping and CVD cases. In the tires case, for example, U.S. consumers and importing companies suffered greatly, while U.S. tire manufacturers didn’t improve at all. That case didn’t even involve WTO-sanctioned retaliation against U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers.

Everything Trump Says About Trade With China Is Wrong

Let us discuss your linked specific example.

1. The Chinese were found to be dumping tire at below manufacturing cost. That is a predatory strategy to destroy your competition so that you can increase market share and raise prices later once you don't have to worry about competition.

Funny that you left that part out.

2. The linked article did not document Trade Diversion, but just pointed out that it MIGHT happen.


So, from your choice of example, it seems that you think that we should allow foreign countries to dump products and drive US manufactures out of business though unfair business practices, with the losses of large numbers of American jobs, because there is nothing we can do about it.

Because even if we stop that particular foreigner, some other foreigner will jump in to fill that role, never an American because we are incapable of competing.


If that is not a correct analysis of your position, please clearly and slowing point out where I went wrong.

 

[Correll]

'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. The U.S. has no right to declare it on any nation. The U.S. and its allies are responsible for the horrific carnage we're seeing in the Middle East. Most Americans refuse to acknowledge that, but it is the reality.

In fact, in the case of Iraq especially, leaders in the U.S. and allied nations should have stood trial for crimes against humanity. The only reason it hasn't happened, is because the U.S./West owns the international court system. They don't get prosecuted for war crimes. It's a rigged system. So Trump is right for the most part. The constant U.S. meddling has created so much bloody carnage and chaos over there.

The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't. And like i said, the only reason U.S. and allied leaders weren't tried for crimes against humanity, is that they own the international court system. Any other nation and its leaders committing such atrocities, would have been arrested and stood trial. The U.S. and its allies are not held accountable. They don't stand trial for War Crimes. It is a rigged system.

NOthing in your post supports your claim.


The war was legally justified.

 

[paulitician]

'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. The U.S. has no right to declare it on any nation. The U.S. and its allies are responsible for the horrific carnage we're seeing in the Middle East. Most Americans refuse to acknowledge that, but it is the reality.

In fact, in the case of Iraq especially, leaders in the U.S. and allied nations should have stood trial for crimes against humanity. The only reason it hasn't happened, is because the U.S./West owns the international court system. They don't get prosecuted for war crimes. It's a rigged system. So Trump is right for the most part. The constant U.S. meddling has created so much bloody carnage and chaos over there.

The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't. And like i said, the only reason U.S. and allied leaders weren't tried for crimes against humanity, is that they own the international court system. Any other nation and its leaders committing such atrocities, would have been arrested and stood trial. The U.S. and its allies are not held accountable. They don't stand trial for War Crimes. It is a rigged system.

NOthing in your post supports your claim.


The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't.

 

[Contumacious]

'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. The U.S. has no right to declare it on any nation. The U.S. and its allies are responsible for the horrific carnage we're seeing in the Middle East. Most Americans refuse to acknowledge that, but it is the reality.

In fact, in the case of Iraq especially, leaders in the U.S. and allied nations should have stood trial for crimes against humanity. The only reason it hasn't happened, is because the U.S./West owns the international court system. They don't get prosecuted for war crimes. It's a rigged system. So Trump is right for the most part. The constant U.S. meddling has created so much bloody carnage and chaos over there.

The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't. And like i said, the only reason U.S. and allied leaders weren't tried for crimes against humanity, is that they own the international court system. Any other nation and its leaders committing such atrocities, would have been arrested and stood trial. The U.S. and its allies are not held accountable. They don't stand trial for War Crimes. It is a rigged system.

NOthing in your post supports your claim.


The war was legally justified.

.......only in your feeble mind

 

[Correll]

'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. The U.S. has no right to declare it on any nation. The U.S. and its allies are responsible for the horrific carnage we're seeing in the Middle East. Most Americans refuse to acknowledge that, but it is the reality.

In fact, in the case of Iraq especially, leaders in the U.S. and allied nations should have stood trial for crimes against humanity. The only reason it hasn't happened, is because the U.S./West owns the international court system. They don't get prosecuted for war crimes. It's a rigged system. So Trump is right for the most part. The constant U.S. meddling has created so much bloody carnage and chaos over there.

The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't. And like i said, the only reason U.S. and allied leaders weren't tried for crimes against humanity, is that they own the international court system. Any other nation and its leaders committing such atrocities, would have been arrested and stood trial. The U.S. and its allies are not held accountable. They don't stand trial for War Crimes. It is a rigged system.

NOthing in your post supports your claim.


The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't.

Sure it was.

 

[Correll]

'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. The U.S. has no right to declare it on any nation. The U.S. and its allies are responsible for the horrific carnage we're seeing in the Middle East. Most Americans refuse to acknowledge that, but it is the reality.

In fact, in the case of Iraq especially, leaders in the U.S. and allied nations should have stood trial for crimes against humanity. The only reason it hasn't happened, is because the U.S./West owns the international court system. They don't get prosecuted for war crimes. It's a rigged system. So Trump is right for the most part. The constant U.S. meddling has created so much bloody carnage and chaos over there.

The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't. And like i said, the only reason U.S. and allied leaders weren't tried for crimes against humanity, is that they own the international court system. Any other nation and its leaders committing such atrocities, would have been arrested and stood trial. The U.S. and its allies are not held accountable. They don't stand trial for War Crimes. It is a rigged system.

NOthing in your post supports your claim.


The war was legally justified.

.......only in your feeble mind

Insulting someone is not supporting an argument.

If anything, using an insult in PLACE of an argument, demonstrates that on some level you know that you cannot honestly defend your position.

 

[Contumacious]

'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. The U.S. has no right to declare it on any nation. The U.S. and its allies are responsible for the horrific carnage we're seeing in the Middle East. Most Americans refuse to acknowledge that, but it is the reality.

In fact, in the case of Iraq especially, leaders in the U.S. and allied nations should have stood trial for crimes against humanity. The only reason it hasn't happened, is because the U.S./West owns the international court system. They don't get prosecuted for war crimes. It's a rigged system. So Trump is right for the most part. The constant U.S. meddling has created so much bloody carnage and chaos over there.

The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't. And like i said, the only reason U.S. and allied leaders weren't tried for crimes against humanity, is that they own the international court system. Any other nation and its leaders committing such atrocities, would have been arrested and stood trial. The U.S. and its allies are not held accountable. They don't stand trial for War Crimes. It is a rigged system.

NOthing in your post supports your claim.


The war was legally justified.

.......only in your feeble mind

Insulting someone is not supporting an argument.

If anything, using an insult in PLACE of an argument, demonstrates that on some level you know that you cannot honestly defend your position.

Unfortunately retards like you do not understand arguments.


If you have an argument in support of War Criminal Bush II then rebut/refute the UK Chicot Report.

You can't or won't - then fuck you.


.

 

[Correll]

The war was legally justified.

No it wasn't. And like i said, the only reason U.S. and allied leaders weren't tried for crimes against humanity, is that they own the international court system. Any other nation and its leaders committing such atrocities, would have been arrested and stood trial. The U.S. and its allies are not held accountable. They don't stand trial for War Crimes. It is a rigged system.

NOthing in your post supports your claim.


The war was legally justified.

.......only in your feeble mind

Insulting someone is not supporting an argument.

If anything, using an insult in PLACE of an argument, demonstrates that on some level you know that you cannot honestly defend your position.

Unfortunately retards like you do not understand arguments.


If you have an argument in support of War Criminal Bush II then rebut/refute the UK Chicot Report.

You can't or won't - then fuck you.


.

Your buddy pauline made the claim that it was illegal. YOu jumped in on her side.

It is on you to support your claims or STFU.

That's normally how debates work. THe person making the claim has to support it.

Jeez, it's almost like YOU do not understand how debates work....

 

[paulitician]

No it wasn't. And like i said, the only reason U.S. and allied leaders weren't tried for crimes against humanity, is that they own the international court system. Any other nation and its leaders committing such atrocities, would have been arrested and stood trial. The U.S. and its allies are not held accountable. They don't stand trial for War Crimes. It is a rigged system.

NOthing in your post supports your claim.


The war was legally justified.

.......only in your feeble mind

Insulting someone is not supporting an argument.

If anything, using an insult in PLACE of an argument, demonstrates that on some level you know that you cannot honestly defend your position.

Unfortunately retards like you do not understand arguments.


If you have an argument in support of War Criminal Bush II then rebut/refute the UK Chicot Report.

You can't or won't - then fuck you.


.

Your buddy pauline made the claim that it was illegal. YOu jumped in on her side.

It is on you to support your claims or STFU.

That's normally how debates work. THe person making the claim has to support it.

Jeez, it's almost like YOU do not understand how debates work....

It wasn't legal. Iraq was no threat to the U.S. 'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. If the U.S./West didn't own the international court system, its leaders would be held accountable. They committed horrific atrocities in Iraq. The American People need to step and demand an end to the Permanent War. It's time.

 

[Correll]

NOthing in your post supports your claim.


The war was legally justified.

.......only in your feeble mind

Insulting someone is not supporting an argument.

If anything, using an insult in PLACE of an argument, demonstrates that on some level you know that you cannot honestly defend your position.

Unfortunately retards like you do not understand arguments.


If you have an argument in support of War Criminal Bush II then rebut/refute the UK Chicot Report.

You can't or won't - then fuck you.


.

Your buddy pauline made the claim that it was illegal. YOu jumped in on her side.

It is on you to support your claims or STFU.

That's normally how debates work. THe person making the claim has to support it.

Jeez, it's almost like YOU do not understand how debates work....

It wasn't legal. Iraq was no threat to the U.S. 'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. If the U.S./West didn't own the international court system, its leaders would be held accountable. They committed horrific atrocities in Iraq. The American People need to step and demand an end to the Permanent War. It's time.

It was legal.

Nations do not have to be a direct threat to a nation for a war to be legal.

"Regime change" is not an illegal policy.

You keep making unsupported assertions.

"Horrific atrocities"? LOL!

 

[paulitician]

.......only in your feeble mind

Insulting someone is not supporting an argument.

If anything, using an insult in PLACE of an argument, demonstrates that on some level you know that you cannot honestly defend your position.

Unfortunately retards like you do not understand arguments.


If you have an argument in support of War Criminal Bush II then rebut/refute the UK Chicot Report.

You can't or won't - then fuck you.


.

Your buddy pauline made the claim that it was illegal. YOu jumped in on her side.

It is on you to support your claims or STFU.

That's normally how debates work. THe person making the claim has to support it.

Jeez, it's almost like YOU do not understand how debates work....

It wasn't legal. Iraq was no threat to the U.S. 'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. If the U.S./West didn't own the international court system, its leaders would be held accountable. They committed horrific atrocities in Iraq. The American People need to step and demand an end to the Permanent War. It's time.

It was legal.

Nations do not have to be a direct threat to a nation for a war to be legal.

"Regime change" is not an illegal policy.

You keep making unsupported assertions.

"Horrific atrocities"? LOL!

Yeah, all those burnt mutilated Iraqi children are so damn hilarious. Sooo LOL.

 

[Correll]

Insulting someone is not supporting an argument.

If anything, using an insult in PLACE of an argument, demonstrates that on some level you know that you cannot honestly defend your position.

Unfortunately retards like you do not understand arguments.


If you have an argument in support of War Criminal Bush II then rebut/refute the UK Chicot Report.

You can't or won't - then fuck you.


.

Your buddy pauline made the claim that it was illegal. YOu jumped in on her side.

It is on you to support your claims or STFU.

That's normally how debates work. THe person making the claim has to support it.

Jeez, it's almost like YOU do not understand how debates work....

It wasn't legal. Iraq was no threat to the U.S. 'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. If the U.S./West didn't own the international court system, its leaders would be held accountable. They committed horrific atrocities in Iraq. The American People need to step and demand an end to the Permanent War. It's time.

It was legal.

Nations do not have to be a direct threat to a nation for a war to be legal.

"Regime change" is not an illegal policy.

You keep making unsupported assertions.

"Horrific atrocities"? LOL!

Yeah, all those burnt mutilated Iraqi children are so damn hilarious. Sooo LOL.

No, your hysteria is hilarious.

I note you still have not actually done anything to support any of your claims.


Other than repeatedly restating them.


For a lefty, your debating skills are very good.

 

[paulitician]

Unfortunately retards like you do not understand arguments.


If you have an argument in support of War Criminal Bush II then rebut/refute the UK Chicot Report.

You can't or won't - then fuck you.


.

Your buddy pauline made the claim that it was illegal. YOu jumped in on her side.

It is on you to support your claims or STFU.

That's normally how debates work. THe person making the claim has to support it.

Jeez, it's almost like YOU do not understand how debates work....

It wasn't legal. Iraq was no threat to the U.S. 'Regime Change' is a dangerous and illegal policy. If the U.S./West didn't own the international court system, its leaders would be held accountable. They committed horrific atrocities in Iraq. The American People need to step and demand an end to the Permanent War. It's time.

It was legal.

Nations do not have to be a direct threat to a nation for a war to be legal.

"Regime change" is not an illegal policy.

You keep making unsupported assertions.

"Horrific atrocities"? LOL!

Yeah, all those burnt mutilated Iraqi children are so damn hilarious. Sooo LOL.

No, your hysteria is hilarious.

I note you still have not actually done anything to support any of your claims.


Other than repeatedly restating them.


For a lefty, your debating skills are very good.

I won't post the photos & videos of the many horrifically mutilated Iraqi women & children. They're far too disturbing for Americans to handle. But the U.S. and its allies did conduct an illegal war and did commit numerous atrocities in Iraq. Its leaders should have been held accountable.