Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

The anti-Christian bigotry from lefties like you

I’m not much of a lefty or anti-Christian. I have been praising your Christian Republican Trump for seeking and finding the truth about the lies W told and the lies you swallowed regarding Iraq.,

Your bigotry and hate is clear. Your denial is silly.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Some people link ISIS to certain groups from the past, but ISIS in its 2014 form would never have existed if the United States had not pre-maturely withdrawn from Iraq in 2011. Anyways, ISIS is largely defeated now

you said the 2003 invasion produced a stable Government in Iraq. It Didnt. SHIITES took over and treated Sunnis like shit. Then ISIS gained the trust of disenfranchised Sunnis starting way before US troops had to leave according to W’s deadline. .Just before W left office at the end of 2008 he negotiated the withdrawal of US troop deadline for every last YS soldier at the end of 2011 to leave.

THATS A FACT.

 

[U2Edge]

The Middle East was not destabilized with Saddam's removal. Your confusing the Arab Spring that started in early 2011 and involved other countries with Iraq.

Not confused. W’s invasion and the removal of SH left a void and Jihadist terrorist filled it and the Sunni Shia conflict destabilized region big time.

As far as the Arab Spring it had nothing to Do with US initiating the policy. It was an entirely different story with the removal of SH by blitzkrieg shock and awe in March 2003. If you support that blitzkrieg shock and awe that killed half a million Iraqis because you wanted SH removed and put a democracy in the Middle East then you need to ask yourself why in the hell W started it in March 2003 when the US military and the state department we’re not ready to set up a government in Iraq that would prevent an insurgency and the mess that Iactually happened. You need to take responsibility for the actions that involve killing people when you choose to support wars if aggression in such willy-nilly fashion. Always thought Independents had more brains and morality than Republicans but I guess not all of them.

The countries that border Iraq; Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Iran and Syria remained stable from 2003 till today with the exception of Syria. It was only in 2011 that Syria first started to experienced significant instability, but not because of anything that happened in Iraq. Iraq in 2011 was calmer than it had been in years. Instability that started in Syria in 2011 did not come from or have anything to do with Iraq.

Waiting to remove Saddam later on would only increase the cost of the initial invasion as Saddam would have more time to rebuild his military capabilities.

You also have to realize that there are COST and CONSEQUENCES to not taking action when the United States did. You have to realize that Saddam's actions from 1979 to 2003 led to deaths of 1.7 million people.

Your mistake is that your assigning blame for certain things to the wrong people and it does not appear you have ever contemplated the cost of not invading and removing Saddam.

 

[U2Edge]

Just out of curiosity, do you support the removal of Adolf Hitler from power in Germany?

F.U. You are not developed intellectually enough to respond to such garbage. Read my posts in this thread.

GWB put the United States more in the role the same as Germany with blitzkrieg shock and awe into Iraq in March 2003. Germany was the most powerful country on earth in 1939 when Hitler invaded weak defenseless Poland. Do you see the similarities of the most powerful country on earth in 2003 invading weak defenseless Iraq and Germany invading weak defenseless Poland.

That is not the comparison that is being made. Were not comparing Germany's global power position in 1939 to Iraq's global power position in the 1990s or 2003. What we are comparing is the actions that were taken and how each did in their own unique significant way pose a threat to the rest of the world. SADDAM benefited by being in close proximity to much of the worlds important natural resources in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Despite SADDAM's weaker overall position compared to Hitler's, SADDAM was stronger in the sense that he could threaten Persian Gulf Energy supply just by moving his troops across certain borders. Hitler never had a similar situation where he could create an economic crises for the entire world by just moving his soldiers only 100 miles across his border.

 

[U2Edge]

Most of the Arab's wanted Saddam gone which is why the continued to support and facilitate U.S. military operations in the region.

That is a lie. The region and and his neighbors wanted inspections to continue. He would be no threat if disarmed of WMD. Were you born before 1993?

I think a ten year old in 2003 would understand what went on?

If that were the case, our Arab friends would not have given the United States all the basing facilities to conduct operations that went into Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were not fans of SADDAM and they helped the United States in the first 1991 Gulf War, as well as conducting the sanctions, inspections, and embargo regime from 1991 to 2003. Kuwait fully supported the invasion and was the launching pad for it. No one in the right mind wanted Saddam to continue after what he did to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1990-1991.

 

[U2Edge]

The reality remains that SADDAM's regime was successfully removed and a new Iraqi government was installed that is not a threat to its neighbors.

Iraq was not a threat when W invaded. No reason to invade and kill all those Iraqis and waste (Trump says) $7 trillion on a disaster. Even a dumb ass like trump could figure it out, what’s wrong with you?

Well, then why was Iraq in 2003 in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Why was the United States bombing Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003 if Saddam's Iraq was as you say, Not A threat"?

Any country with the foreign policy history of SADDAM would be considered a major threat.

You can't pretend that is not the case and White Wash Saddam. Its Saddam's past behavior, and his ability to assemble the resources of his country in the future to commit past actions which made him a threat.

Saddam was removed and the world is safer for it. You will lose any debate comparing Saddam's regime with the current Iraqi government.

 

[U2Edge]

Some people link ISIS to certain groups from the past, but ISIS in its 2014 form would never have existed if the United States had not pre-maturely withdrawn from Iraq in 2011. Anyways, ISIS is largely defeated now

you said the 2003 invasion produced a stable Government in Iraq. It Didnt. SHIITES took over and treated Sunnis like shit. Then ISIS gained the trust of disenfranchised Sunnis starting way before US troops had to leave according to W’s deadline. .Just before W left office at the end of 2008 he negotiated the withdrawal of US troop deadline for every last YS soldier at the end of 2011 to leave.

THATS A FACT.

There were problems in the years after SADDAM because of the Sunni insurgency and the difficulties of nation building. But those problems were overcome to a certain degree which is why in 2021, less people die from violence in Iraq than they do in California or the city of Chicago. Iraq TODAY has a more stable government, a more civilized government than SADDAM's regime. More importantly for the United States, today's Iraqi government does not pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors like Saddam's regime did for decades.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

less people die from violence in Iraq

No Iraqis were dying from violence in March 2003 until W invaded. W’s Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe started the violence. No violence in Iraq. It was more stable before W Invaded.. What is your point?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Iraq TODAY has a more stable government, a more civilized government than SADDAM's regime. More importantly for the United States, today's Iraqi government does not pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors like Saddam's regime did for decades

Iraq was not a threat if he didn’t have WMD. W agreed SH Could stay in power if SH did not have WMD. Until March 10 2003 said no regime change if SH does not have WMD’s - but W decided to lie about WMD as even dumbass DJT was able to figure out.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Well, then why was Iraq in 2003 in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Why was the United States bombing Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003 if Saddam's Iraq was as you say, Not A threat"?

Because of 1441. Do you know what that is?

No one bombed Iraq after 1441 was passed in November 2002 until Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe in March 2003.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Do you think this is funny Correll.

No Iraqis were dying from violence in March 2003 until W invaded.

 

[Correll]

Do you think this is funny Correll.

No Iraqis were dying from violence in March 2003 until W invaded.

Somewhat. Your assumption that the oppression of Saddam was not hurting anyone, is highly unlikely.


But, I don't care enough to research it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Well, then why was Iraq in 2003 in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

Because he did not allow inspectors do their work and cooperate until after 1441.

look it up. UNSC Resolution 1441.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ut, I don't care enough to research it.

Of course you don’t care. You would have to find a fact that does not exist.

You will denounce the researchers without providing research to challenge them.

*****

Key Findings
Death rates were 5.5/1,000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1,000/year for the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate— in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

But, I don't care enough to research it.

so you laughed at half a million dead Iraqis because of the invasion you supported.


*****We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate— in Iraq as a consequence of the war.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Any country with the foreign policy history of SADDAM would be considered a major threat.

Why did W offer to leave SH in power between March 6 thru March 10 2003 if SH did not have WMD?

Iraq’s “foreign policy history” did not convince W or the US Congress that SADDAM was a any kind of a threat.

 

[Correll]

ut, I don't care enough to research it.

Of course you don’t care. You would have to find a fact that does not exist.

You will denounce the researchers without providing research to challenge them.

***** View attachment 509631

Key Findings
Death rates were 5.5/1,000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1,000/year for the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate— in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.

Yes. The way you use that for partisan purposes is disgusting. You are a bad person.

 

[Correll]

But, I don't care enough to research it.

so you laughed at half a million dead Iraqis because of the invasion you supported.


*****We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate— in Iraq as a consequence of the war.

No, I laughed at the way you are a hysteric over events from decades ago, while using the deaths of innocents for partisan gain.

That you spin it like you did, is just more of the same.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

There are huge personal differences between W and DJT but studying the Iraq invasion in historic detail in the context of their claimed religion and their white evangelical Iraq war support reveals a certain continuity between the two FORMER presidents. Both were disasters in different ways. But both disasters were fully endorsed without question by white evangelical Christians - the largest loosely organized voting block in the GOP. its worth study.

That is nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? I’m being called an SH apologist by U2Edge because DJT, black evangelical Christians, and I oppose and condemn the needless killing of half a million innocent Iraqis in order to do nation building in iraq after regime change.

Are black evangelical Christians and DJT SH apologists?


Is it possible that white evangelical Christians who disagree with DJT on Iraq, who still support killing half a million Iraqis who were no threat could be wrong.

Is it possible that white evangelical Christians could ever be a malicious and malignant influence in U.S. politics? Are they always right about everything including when it’s necessary to kill half a million Iraqis who were no threat.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Yes. The way you use that for partisan purposes is disgusting. You are a bad person

How is it partisan for me when DJT says W lied about WMD so he could invade IRAQ WHICH caused half a million Iraqis to die.

DJT is right. nothing partisan in saying that