Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

Many Iraqi children died before the US invasion because of sanctions.

Correct. Do you care about them, or do you find it useful to use their deaths against your enemies?

 

[Correll]

Yes. Seriously. We are not talking about people making decisions in general. That was a diversion on your part. I don’t fall for your diversions.
....

Dude. You cut the most important part of my post. That was insanely dishonest and cowardly of you.

And a point about how people make decisions IN GENERAL, would thus apply to an individual.


If you say that people generally, drink water, and thus that this individual drinks water. that's a valid point.


Seriously. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Correll]

Correll do polls exist?
...

I agree that tendency was there for military action into Afghanistan, but I have seen zero evidence that such a tendency existed for a majority of Americans when it came to Iraq.

My observations at the time, it looked pretty obvious to me.

 

[Correll]

Why did you say that?

I do not contend that America runs itself or runs on, or runs in any way by polls?

A 6 out of 10 majority of Americans telling pollsters they want the UN involved to deal with WMD in Iraq from OCTOBER 2002 through March 2003 gives us the mood if the country on a specific topic in a certain moment if time.

So why do you dismiss the majority’s serious mood and opinion when being asked to consider a preemptive war for the very first time.

Because we are not a direct democracy. No country is.

You want to avoid war? Elect leaders that want to do the same.


America does not have a history of doing that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The USA operates under US Constitutional law. NOT international law.

When did the United States of America withdraw its membership in the united nations and seems to be an active member of the United Nations Security Council?

Food for your thought:

The language of Article 51 reads:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security” (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm).

 

[Correll]

NotfooledbyW

If you have a choice between smearing your enemies, and actually spreading your anti-war ideas,

which would you choose?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You want to avoid war? Elect leaders that want to do the same.

Another option is not to support and excuse leaders that lie to citizens about the necessity of preemptive war. And if you think it was not a lie, just an honest mistake, don’t excuse that either. President’s have plenty of resources that should prevent the kind of blunder that W made about WMD being hidden in Iraq.

And when the blunder causes half a million Iraqi deaths you need not whine and piss and moan about Americans who aren’t so eager to sweep it under the ooops honest mistake rug like the white evangelicals and cultural Christians like you want to do.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because we are not a direct democracy.

Do you always have to dismiss the opinion of the majority because America is not a direct democracy?

That question is directed to you because you have claimed that Americans were more open to war in Iraq because of the September 2001 attacks. it was after the terrorist attack 2001 that six out of ten Americans said they preferred giving UN inspectors more time rather than invading Iraq over the WMD threat. So why do you dismiss that peaceful preference and go around lying and blabbing that America wanted war and ran out of patience with SH. You and a bunch of white evangelical Christians wanted war. But most Americans and many of them Christians did not..

So you made it up by observing only likeminded warmongers in your right wing universe.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And a point about how people make decisions IN GENERAL, would thus apply to an individual.

You have no fucking clue “how” W made the decision to invade Iraq. We all know however what that decision was.

He may have flipped a coin for all we know.

You cannot discuss the decision itself so you want to take us through a detour. Your usual crap.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If you have a choice between smearing your enemies,

You have not explained how asking you to answer a question is smearing enemies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

W said, "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," … So Correll a relevant question to an Iraq invasion supporter in this thread - Do you think the family member survivors of the half a million IRAQIS who died as a result of W’s decision to Blitzkrieg Shock and awe the people of IRAQ to search for WMD, are more shocked and angry or less shocked and angry than the man who put their innocent lives in danger over WMD he said “there was no doubt” were there.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2. THe UN inspectors are not credible. Their claims have no weight.

Every single one of the inspectors’ claims about WMD held up. All of W’s claims about WMD were found not to be true. That is a fact.

Prompting W to write this:

"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.

George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack

Former US President George W Bush says he still has a "sickening feeling" because no WMDs were found in Iraq, in memoirs due to appear next week.

www.google.com

"I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

You are a flagrant and deliberate fact denier. Otherwise known to be a liar.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact.

But a white Christian US President in your white cultural Christian head can start a war and invade a Muslim country that causes the deaths of half a million Muslims based on unverified intelligence that had zero physical verification of what the WMD was or where the WMD was or under whose control the WMD was being stockpiled.

And when it turns out the intelligence was all wrong you say oooops, sorry dead people, honest mistake, let’s move on.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Of course, I mostly don't care about your reasons then for what you believed then.

Since when are we supposed to have reasons for believing determinable facts?

For instance it was an easy determinable fact that SH was cooperating with inspectors and that The regime’s cooperation steadily improved from December 2002 until the start of the invasion in mid March.

I didn’t know that there was an option or need of having different reasons to believe an observable fact about something going on in the world and documented by reliable news sources and Authorities of the US government.

*** SECRETARY POWELL: They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues

SECRETARY POWELL: We've never said that war is inevitable. The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution. resolution?

Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos

But at the same time, if Iraq does not cooperate or if we find reason to believe that they do have weapons of mass destruction that they have not identified and turned over to the international community, then the President has all of his options available to him. And he has the option of also going back to the United Nations or acting unilaterally with likeminded nations. ***

 

[Correll]

Another option is not to support and excuse leaders that lie to citizens about the necessity of preemptive war. And if you think it was not a lie, just an honest mistake, don’t excuse that either. President’s have plenty of resources that should prevent the kind of blunder that W made about WMD being hidden in Iraq.

And when the blunder causes half a million Iraqi deaths you need not whine and piss and moan about Americans who aren’t so eager to sweep it under the ooops honest mistake rug like the white evangelicals and cultural Christians like you want to do.

I'm not pissing and moaning. YOU started this thread and asked a question. And I answered it.

You did not address that my point was a COUNTER point to an point of your from the previous post. Are you dropping that point now? You have moved on to another.

Are you conceding that previous point? Or since I countered it, and you can't refute what I said, is this more of a change the subject to distract from that fact that I disproved your point and you completely plan to come back to the refuted point in the future?

 

[Correll]

Do you always have to dismiss the opinion of the majority because America is not a direct democracy?

That question is directed to you because you have claimed that Americans were more open to war in Iraq because of the September 2001 attacks. it was after the terrorist attack 2001 that six out of ten Americans said they preferred giving UN inspectors more time rather than invading Iraq over the WMD threat. So why do you dismiss that peaceful preference and go around lying and blabbing that America wanted war and ran out of patience with SH. You and a bunch of white evangelical Christians wanted war. But most Americans and many of them Christians did not..

So you made it up by observing only likeminded warmongers in your right wing universe.

Kind of an asshole move to "ask" a "question" and then answer it, and then insult me as though your answer was my answer.


What that shows is that "questions" from libs are rarely actually questions asked in good faith. What they are, are generally ACCUSATIONS of bad behavior, falsely structured as questions.

This is you debating in bad faith. YOu are not actually engaged in debate here, you are just spamming anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-white talking points, to spread hate and division.


Which leads back to the only real question remaining, which is WHY are you doing that?


What is your ideological Identification?

 

[surada]

Correct. Do you care about them, or do you find it useful to use their deaths against your enemies?

What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[surada]

Kind of an asshole move to "ask" a "question" and then answer it, and then insult me as though your answer was my answer.


What that shows is that "questions" from libs are rarely actually questions asked in good faith. What they are, are generally ACCUSATIONS of bad behavior, falsely structured as questions.

This is you debating in bad faith. YOu are not actually engaged in debate here, you are just spamming anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-white talking points, to spread hate and division.


Which leads back to the only real question remaining, which is WHY are you doing that?


What is your ideological Identification?

You just did the same thing to me.

The invasion of Iraq was about lies NOT ideology.

 

[Correll]

You have no fucking clue “how” W made the decision to invade Iraq. We all know however what that decision was.

He may have flipped a coin for all we know.

You cannot discuss the decision itself so you want to take us through a detour. Your usual crap.

I'm not the one that brought up his decision making, you were. ANd when I point out that your view on how he made the decision was obviously wrong, suddenly it is impossible to know how some one else made a decision?

That is you AGAIN, being a dishonest and bad faith debater.


It is painfully obvious that your goal here is not to arrive at the truth though the contest of ideas but to push a Lie, that you know is a Lie.


If you were not a liar, at this point, you would DROP forever all your speculation and talk about the decision to invade, because you have admitted that you do not know, and cannot know how he made the decision.


BUT, we both know that you will NOT, because when you say it, it sounds good. Even if it is immediately debunked you won't admit it was debunked, you will stonewall or dance away, and MAYBE you will convince some fool reading or listening that believe your anti-American shit.


And you will keep coming back to it.


Wally.

 

[Correll]

You have not explained how asking you to answer a question is smearing enemies.

I could teach you to go from being a troll doing nothing but spreading hate and division to being an effective anti-war intellectual spreading the idea of and support for Peace, effectively and usefully,


with THREE WORDS.


Would you like that?