Did you Support War in Iraq??

[postman]

I supported disarming Iraq by continuation of the peaceful means for a few months. We found out there would have been no reason for war if the inspectors were given the time they needed.

Actually there was no reason to "disarm" Iraq, because they had already disarmed themselves. The WMD's that were claimed to exist, were because during the Gulf War, the information ministry, and hence the records and paperwork were blown up.

So when the Iraqi's were asked to account for what happened to the WMD's, it was a "dog ate my homework" situation, except it was the US blew up the records that would have shown how they were disposed of.

 

[postman]

You are a liar. SH was removed ONLY because W decided he was not cooperating with the UN INSPECTORS Because W told you that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors therefore blowing SH’s FINAL Opportunity To remain in power under UNSC Resolution 1441.

I remember Colin Powell famously said about the WMD's in Iraq.
If we find them, it means Saddam Hussein was lying all along.
And if we don't find them, it just means Saddam hid his weapons very well.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I never said our men and women in uniform who were unfortunately sent by W to kill and be killed in an unnecessary war did not try to avoid civilian casualties. They certainly did most of the time.

The point to which you do not respond is that it was W’s singular and corrupt decision to invade that caused all the deaths. If the decision was to give the inspectors a few more months to finish their work then - then there is realization no WMD in Iraq - Bush was wrong / long term WMD monitoring begins / WMD related sanctions are lifted / SH stays in power / US and UK cannot veto UN decision to end sanctions / There is no war / Russia begins developing Iraq’s lucrative oil getting it on the world market / US and UK oil companies may not get contracts because SH is in power / half a million Iraqis do not die following W’s horrible decision to put an end to peaceful inspections / no US troops are killed and they don’t get arms and legs blown off for six years / The American taxpayer saves the $5 trillion wasted on IRAQ $7 trillion according to DJT.

I never said our men and women in uniform who were unfortunately sent by W to kill and be killed in an unnecessary war did not try to avoid civilian casualties. They certainly did most of the time.

The point to which you do not respond is that it was W’s singular and corrupt decision to invade that caused all the deaths. If the decision was to give the inspectors a few more months to finish their work then - then there is realization no WMD in Iraq - Bush was wrong / long term WMD monitoring begins / WMD related sanctions are lifted / SH stays in power / US and UK cannot veto UN decision to end sanctions / There is no war / Russia begins developing Iraq’s lucrative oil getting it on the world market / US and UK oil companies may not get contracts because SH is in power / half a million Iraqis do not die following W’s horrible decision to put an end to peaceful inspections / no US troops are killed and they don’t get arms and legs blown off for six years / The American taxpayer saves the $5 trillion wasted on IRAQ $7 trillion according to DJT.

The point to which you do not respond is that it was W’s singular and corrupt decision to invade that caused all the deaths.
It most certainly was not only one man's decision to invade Iraq either time.
Both invasions were the right course of action for America to pursue.
The responsibility for all deaths rests entirely on Saddam and his supporters (which apparently includes you). He chose to invade Kuwait. He chose to repeatedly violate the cease fire that might have resulted in an end to the war. The"...singular and corrupt decision to invade..." was made by Saddam when he invaded Kuwait.

If the decision was to give the inspectors a few more months to finish their work then -
That was was the decision that was part of the cease fire. Ten years is more than "a few months". Saddam ignored the ultimatum to step down which was one last chance. Except that this time we meant it.

US and UK cannot veto UN decision to end sanctions
The UN did not fight the war. The UN did not make the cease fire although they approved it. The ultimatum to step down did not come from the UN. The USA is a sovereign nation that makes it's own foreign policy decisions which is exactly what we did.

 

[Correll]

What dead people?

The ones I mentioned earlier and you dismissed, because you could not use them.


That showed that all your drama and pretend caring about the ones that died after the invasion, was bullshit. YOu are just pretending to care, so that you have an excuse to be an asshole.



NOt. Your whole goal here, it seems is to get people to admit that they are bad people.


What are the odds of that happening, NOT?

 

[Correll]

You continue to support killing half a million Iraqis to disarm Iraq using violence because you had no patience and could not wait a few months to conclude inspections.

I supported disarming Iraq by continuation of the peaceful means for a few months. We found out there would have been no reason for war if the inspectors were given the time they needed.

If pointing out your preference for killing innocent human beings sows division between those of us (six of ten Americans) who supported not killing innocent Iraqis then so be it.

Why do you want to increase division and hatred among Americans?

 

[Correll]

You are a liar. SH was removed ONLY because W decided he was not cooperating with the UN INSPECTORS Because W told

You are being dishonest and retarded. This bit where you focus on a single statement or part of a grand strategy and insist like a retard that THAT WAS THE SOLE MOTIVE,


is utterly retarded. You look like a complete retard and a complete asshole.


Seriously. What kind of self image do you have, that you don't have a problem with presenting yourself like this?


Are you a sociopath?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Actually there was no reason to "disarm" Iraq, because they had already disarmed themselves.

I think it was reasonable to suspect SH had WMD but never should that suspiciousness be the grounds for starting a war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are being dishonest and retarded. This bit where you focus on a single statement or part of a grand strategy and insist like a retard that THAT WAS THE SOLE MOTIVE,

It was the sole and only basis for invading Iraq as presented by W and authorized by Congress.

Its why they searched for a year to find them because they knew it was the only true justification to start killing Iraqis and getting more Americans killed than died on September 11 2001.

There was no case for war outside of SH being in possession of WMD and getting those WMD into the hands of terrorists.

The fact of the 1441 inspections being focused fully on WMD is the full and absolute proof that there was no plan by W to take down the regime if the inspectors verified that the WMD did not exist.

W put it in writing that SH can avoid war and removal if he was verified disarmed.

Its why W lied on March 17 2003 that he had intelligence confirming with no doubt that SH was hiding WMD from inspectors.

 

[Correll]

It was the sole and only basis for invading Iraq as presented by W and authorized by Congress.

.....

Your bullshit rationalizations for your bullshit, is not important. My point stands. What you are doing it retarded and asshole.

My question stands. Are you a socio-path?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your bullshit rationalizations for your bullshit, is not important. My point stands. What you are doing it retarded and asshole.

My question stands. Are you a socio-path?

That is quite the opposite of a facts-based reasonable argument against the true facts regarding the ramp up to the Iraq War 2003 - 2011.

There was no justification to attack Iraq in March 2003 except to remove WMD by removing SH. That is W’s absolute justification and only purpose for killing and being killed.

Its so easy to tell when you have neither facts nor reason to counter what I know to be true.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This bit where you focus on a single statement or part of a grand strategy and insist like a retard that THAT WAS THE SOLE MOTIVE,

I don’t profess to have perfect knowledge of the ‘motive’ on W’s part for starting the Iraq War. The motive could very well be to gain access to oil for US and UK Oil Companies.

The only sold justification for starting the invasion of Iraq was directly linked to possession of WMD.

What grand strategy? There was no strategy let alone a grand strategy involved in the US invasion of Iraq. There is no explanation for what the UN inspectors were doing in Iraq except to find WMD if it was there. You are not dealing with reality as has become prevalent among Republican voters.

Your bullshit rationalizations for your bullshit, is not important.

What is bullshit about the ONLY reason UN Inspectors were on the ground in Iraq working to avoid a war..

A war solely based on SH’s possession of WMD.

it was W himself who wanted inspections in Iraq so that W himself could avoid the necessity of starting a war because once SH is disarmed he gets to stay in power..

 

[Correll]

That is quite the opposite of a facts-based reasonable argument against the true facts regarding the ramp up to the Iraq War 2003 - 2011.

There was no justification to attack Iraq in March 2003 except to remove WMD by removing SH. That is W’s absolute justification and only purpose for killing and being killed.

Its so easy to tell when you have neither facts nor reason to counter what I know to be true.

We've completely covered the war as an issue.


THe take away is that you were against it, and now you are dishonest about it, and using it to spread hate and division.


The question is why.


WHY do you want to tear America down? Do you see America as a bad thing? Are you against all nations, or just your own?

 

[Correll]

I don’t profess to have perfect knowledge of the ‘motive’ on W’s part for starting the Iraq War. The motive could very well be to gain access to oil for US and UK Oil Companies.

The only sold justification for starting the invasion of Iraq was directly linked to possession of WMD.
.....

And that's a lie, thus demonstrating my point about your being dishonest about the issue now.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The only sold justification for starting the invasion of Iraq was directly linked to possession of WMD.

And that's a lie, thus demonstrating my point about your being dishonest about the issue now.

Its not a lie because W would not have invaded Iraq for any other reason than SH being in possession of WMD. There was absolutely no reason for W to set up and cooperate with UN Inspectors for four months if getting SH’s hands off of WMD was not the sole purpose for removing him from power.

And W explains very clearly why he decided the peaceful inspections and SH’s regime must end.


“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.


Is it true or false Correll that if W did not have “intelligence” that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised that W said and put it in writing that America was willing to leave SH in power and there would be no war?

 

[Correll]

Its not a lie because W would not have invaded Iraq for any other reason than SH being in possession of WMD. ....

We are past discussing the war. We have covered it all.


The take aways are, you were against it, and now you are dishonest about it, and using it to spread hate and division.


The question is why.


WHY do you want to tear America down? Do you see America as a bad thing? Are you against all nations, or just your own?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We are past discussing the war. We have covered it all.

Then quit lying about the sole justification for the war if you cannot answer this very basic question.

You can run from the question but you cannot run from the truth.

So I will ask it again:

Is it true or false @Correll that if W did not have “intelligence” that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised that W said and put it in writing that America was willing to leave SH in power and there would be no war?

Why do you call me a liar but refuse to acknowledge that the above statement is true?

There was no cause or justification worth invading Iraq except for the claim by W that he possessed intelligence that left no doubt that SH continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised in violation of UN resolution 1441.

If not for that intelligence W said multiple time he preferred to disarm peacefully and would do so.

That means nothing else would justify war to the Commander in Chief of the US Military except SH being in possession of WMD the necessity to remove SH from power. AND YOU CALL me a liar for stating it and now you have to run away from discussing Iraq.

Go ahead and run. You are a proven liar..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

WHY do you want to tear America down?

Why is asking a liar like you the following question - tearing American down?

Is it true or false @Correll that if W did not have “intelligence” that left no doubt that the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised that W said and put it in writing that America was willing to leave SH in power and there would be no war?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The take aways are, you were against it, and now you are dishonest about it,

you say I am dishonest but you cannot back a damn thing up to support the charges.

Its true that W said this when he announced he finally decided that war was necessary.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

What is dishonest about that? Its the only reason W decided to invade Iraq on March 17 2003. He told us that.

“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

<a href="/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.v.smil"></a>Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight, and to discuss with the American people the serious matters facing our country and the world.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov

Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”

If you think W would do regime change in Iraq by invading for any other reason other than to disarm Iraq, what was it?

You cannot offer up one reason.

The inspectors were not in Iraq looking for ties to al Qaeda m. They were not there to determine if regime change and placing a MUSLIM democracy in the Persian Gulf was a great way to fight terrorists. So what were inspectors doing in Iraq at W’s request if not to disarm Iraq peacefully and take away all necessity for war.

 

[Correll]

Then quit lying about the sole justification for the war if you cannot answer this very basic question.

You can run from the question but you cannot run from the truth.

So I will ask it again:
.....

Too late, bored. We covered all of that. The only question is, why do you want to spread hate adn division?

 

[Correll]

Why is asking a liar like you the following question - tearing American down?

Because we've been over all of that, and gotten to the point of being past that.

YOu opposed the war, and now you are using it to spread hate and division.


Why are you afraid of answering?