Did you Support War in Iraq??

[9thIDdoc]

Shooing the Iraqis out of Kuwait was enough...even though the Saudis and everyone else knew the Kuwaitis were in the wrong.

The battle occurred before the Iraqis were driven from Kuwait.
Now you claim the Kuwaitis were in the wrong because the Iraqis invaded and occupied their country? Cute.

 

[surada]

The battle occurred before the Iraqis were driven from Kuwait.
Now you claim the Kuwaitis were in the wrong because the Iraqis invaded and occupied their country? Cute.

Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.. Saddam had asked the US and the UN to addressed the problem for months.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.. Saddam had asked the US and the UN to addressed the problem for months.

So Iraq stole everything including lives from the Kuwaitis. You don't find that reaction (if true) to be a bit excessive?
Was Israel SA and the US also stealing from Iraq?

 

[Correll]

That group of warmongering white evangelical nationalistic hard right Republican voting Christians had a lower standard when compared to all other groups including all other Christian groups. That group is the most anti-Muslim of all other groups and you think anti-Muslim bIgotry in that group had nothing to do with their being the most supportive of W’s dumb invasion knowing thousands of innocent Muslims would die.


You are totally lost in any discussion involving reality. You are intellectually under developed. Did you get vaccinated yet or are you hoping to be the incubator for a new aggressive COVID variant that beats the vaccinated and starts a whole new epidemic and shuts everything down again?

1. That you can't support your point without using retarded appeals to emotion, like "warmongering" is you admitting that you cannot support your point, at all. You lose.

2. Incorrect. Plenty of people supported the war without being "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christians". You are just saying shit now.

3. This is the first you have made the claim that, this group is "the most anti-Muslim of all groups". I doubt that you can support that in any way.

4 You even saying "anti-muslim bigtroy" is uncalled for. It is all shit you just made up, you and the voices in your head.

5. You have demonstrated that you don't care about "innocent muslims dying" when you don't care, EXCEPT WHEN IT GIVES YOU AN EXCUSE TO SMEAR YOUR ENEMIES.


6. To support your previously unstated premise, that "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christians" have a lower standard for war WITH MUSLISM, you have to compare their standard of war, with other groups.

You have refused to even try.

 

[Correll]

NotfooledbyW

We can always tell when you are stuck.

The word “irrelevant” pops up when you are. Just like the little red thermometer in a Butterball Turkey.

Not,

Hypothetical. Ten years from now, a "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christian" President is gearing up for a war vs a Muslim nation.


You have a choice in front of you.,


1. Take an stance against it, pointing out to those supporting the war, that the last time they did this, their standard for war was too low and they ended up going to war based on a false belief in WMDs and it did not go very well,


OR.


2. Take a stand against it, pointing out to those supporting it that they are going to war against Muslim people and that they have a low standard for that, because they are "wacist, bloodthirsty, warmongers".



Question. Which do you choose and why?


If you refuse to answer, I will answer for you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Plenty of people supported the war without being "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christians".

I never said only white evangelical nationalistic hard right Republican Christians supported the war.

 

[Correll]

The purpose of the peace loving world community prior t

I stopped reading here. Your drama queen-ness does not deserve consideration.

 

[Correll]

I never said only white evangelical nationalistic hard right Republican Christians supported the war.

Correct. So your claim that THOSE PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY, had a lower standard for war, AGAINST MUSLIMS, is completely unsupported and reflects more on you, than on them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correct. So your claim that THOSE PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY, had a lower standard for war, AGAINST MUSLIMS, is completely unsupported

No. You are an idiot. All of you Iraq invasion warmongers that are white but not evangelical Christian have a very low standard for war against Muslims. You got a Half million Muslims killed when there was no threat from them or the dictatorship they lived under.

Black Americans religious or not opposed starting a war that could kill Muslims. They favored disarming Iraq by peaceful means just like white me and most Democrats did before the war. Thats because black Americans and me and most Democrats have a higher standard before supporting an offensive war than you white rightwing warmongers do.

 

[Correll]

No. You are an idiot. All of you Iraq invasion warmongers that are white but not evangelical Christian have a very low standard for war against Muslims. You got a Half million Muslims killed when there was no threat from them or the dictatorship they lived under.

Black Americans religious or not opposed starting a war that could kill Muslims. They favored disarming Iraq by peaceful means just like white me and most Democrats did before the war. Thats because black Americans and me and most Democrats have a higher standard before supporting an offensive war than you white rightwing warmongers do.

That is your unstated premise. I have challenged you to support it.


So far you have pointed out that other different groups had different standards for war.

That of course, does not support your claim of cause and effect.

You have also repeatedly asserted your premise, and repeatedly pointed out the race and faith of your enemies.


Considering the seriousness of your charge, the fact that you are comfortable making it, when you are utterly unable to support it,

is just you being an asshole.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Hypothetical. Ten years from now, a "white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican voting Christian" President is gearing up for a war vs a Muslim nation.

Twenty years ago W was not a white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican Christian President. Drop the “ nationalistic hard right” part and that was W. But W’s significantly active war supporting political base was filled with white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican Christians - let’s be clear. We don’t need a hypothetical because I supported W’s war In Afghanistan to rid the place of Taliban who had connections to al Qaeda who had ties to 9/11.

I do not make judgment on whether war is justified based on the religious beliefs of the President. I make it ordinarily based on if there is a peaceful option or not.

 

[Correll]

Twenty years ago W was not a white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican Christian President. Drop the “ nationalistic hard right” part and that was W. But W’s significantly active war supporting political base was filled with white evangelical nationalistic hard right republican Christians - let’s be clear. We don’t need a hypothetical because I supported W’s war In Afghanistan to rid the place of Taliban who had connections to al Qaeda who had ties to 9/11.

I do not make judgment on whether war is justified based on the religious beliefs of the President. I make it ordinarily based on if there is a peaceful option or not.

That's nice. NOw, would you like to address the point I raised?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That is your unstated premise.

I’m not offering a premise. I’m advising you on the facts. But if I offered a premise it would be stated not unstated.

 

[Correll]

I’m not offering a premise. I’m advising you on the facts. But if offered a premise it would be stated not unstated.

It is your premise. That you cannot support. Calling it a fact, is just you refusing to support your premise. Probably because you realize that you cannot support it.

Indeed, it was an unstated premise, and it was kind of shitty of you to hide your real reasoning.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That's nice. NOw, would you like to address the point I raised?

Yes. The point you raised is pointless. I may support a war if the President is a rightwing white evangelical Christian. I look at the facts and the threat.

You only offer two choices;

1. Take an stance against it

OR.

2. Take a stand against it,

And for that reason I’m saying none of the above.

I support the war in Afghanistan from the day W launched it though today.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is your premise

why did you call it an “unstated premise”

That is your unstated premise.

HELP US OUT. put my premise in a statement.

 

[Correll]

Yes. The point you raised is pointless. I may support a war if the President is a rightwing white evangelical Christian. I look at the facts and the threat.

You only offer two choices;



OR.




And for that reason I’m saying none of the above.

I support the war in Afghanistan from the day W launched it though today.

Got it. YOU are refusing to answer, for obvious reasons. As I said, I will answer for you.


You would choose number ONE, ie take a stance against it, and tell those who support it, that they are supporting the war because they are bloodthirsty wacists.


This would do nothing except piss them all because all you would be doing would be calling them names, like an ill mannered child.



You would NOT do number two, because that would actually be a productive thing to say, debate wise, and you have no desire to actually address the issue.


Your goal is just to smear your enemies and to rile up your side, to be more angry and hateful against them.


Much like a man leading a lynch mob or a witch hunt.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Got it. YOU are refusing to answer,

You are a liar. You can’t handle my answer. I would never take a stance against the need for war simply because of the religion and political ideology of the POTUS.

w was wrong about IRAQ. w was right about AFGHANISTAN.

 

[Correll]

You are a liar. You can’t handle my answer. I would never take a stance against the need for war simply because of the religion and political ideology of the POTUS.

w was wrong about IRAQ. w was right about AFGHANISTAN.

My point stands.

You would choose number ONE, ie take a stance against it, and tell those who support it, that they are supporting the war because they are bloodthirsty wacists.


This would do nothing except piss them all because all you would be doing would be calling them names, like an ill mannered child.



You would NOT do number two, because that would actually be a productive thing to say, debate wise, and you have no desire to actually address the issue.


Your goal is just to smear your enemies and to rile up your side, to be more angry and hateful against them.


Much like a man leading a lynch mob or a witch hunt.

 

[9thIDdoc]

why did you call it an “unstated premise”



HELP US OUT. put my premise in a statement.

Oh please, allow me:
You believe muslims of any race or nationality should murder, rape, torture, deceive, et cetera any they deem to be "infidels"(including those of other muslim cults) but especially innocent defenseless women and children because they are less likely to attempt to defend themselves (and muslims tend to be cowards). And that doing so will earn them a place in the muslim version of heaven where they can spend all their time defiling unwilling children.
Nailed it, didn't I?