Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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.

I would guess less.

 

[Correll]

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.

....

Interesting claim. Sorry, can't be bothered to discuss them. That is too moot at this point.

 

[Correll]

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.

That is a good example of a "question" that is just an accusation of bad behavior. The majority of the text is actually spin, and racist, and bigoted spin at that.


It is worth noting that the "question" itself has NOTHING to do with the post you "responded" to.


Indeed, it is impossible to imagine someone stupid enough to think that because you can't do one thing, that that would somehow mean that you can't do something else completely different.


Seriously, the level of dishonesty and bullshit you are slinging now. What is going on? Are you "feeling the heat" or just practicing how much shit you can throw in as small of a post as possible?

 

[Correll]

S

What the hell is wrong with you?

What are you talking about? You posted something and I agreed with you.

Were you trying to make a point? If so, you failed to make it.


Try using words. Other people can't hear the voices in your head.

 

[Correll]

You just did the same thing to me.

The invasion of Iraq was about lies NOT ideology.

Wars are not "about" "lies".

IMO, the invasion of Iraq was at least partially about ideology, ie a the Ideology of a Liberal Secular West vs that of Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

It is worth noting that the "question" itself has NOTHING to do with the post you "responded" to.

I was responding to your declaration that UN inspectors cannot verify the 1991 unilateral destruction of WMD AFTER the fact.

You cannot respond to the point so you make another format complaint. What else can you do?

What is the problem with questioning your bad behavior.

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.

Are we supposed to coddle you because you are a white American cultural Christian who supports the killing of half a million Iraqis over a mistake.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I could teach you

You lied. You said SH poked the bear after 1441. You cant teach anybody anything about Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

IMO, the invasion of Iraq was at least partially about ideology, ie a the Ideology of a Liberal Secular West vs that of Islamic Fundamentalism.

The invasion of Iraq was about taking WMD out of SH’s hands to remove a threat to our national security, to ensure peace and tranquillity in the region and nothing else.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What is your ideological Identification?

I don’t have one. Thats a format complaint. I am here on this threat to present facts and confront lies and disinformation about the ramp up to war in Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When Correll was confronted with a direct quote by Senator Biden that I provided where he said that he considered giving the inspectors a few extra months brings no change in risk and would enhance building a coalition. Turns out Biden’s assessment in February 2003 was correct.

So Correll resorts to this:

THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.

You are pretending that if it is there, it is a "Fact".

There was no pretending. Biden’s analysis prior to the invasion is a fact and was a fact placed on the record at the time.

Within a year after Biden’s statement - events in Iraq made Biden’s statement true. Iraq and America would have been better off as Biden said if W held off invading Iraq until the next``cold,'' season in the late fall 2003 if war was necessary.

Biden said this;

“So I sit down and I say, the value--not the legitimacy, not the justness, not the equities--this guy does not deserve another tenth of a second, but by giving him another 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months and not moving until the next``cold,'' quote/unquote, season in their--in the late fall, what is the risk of doing that relative to the amount of support we would pick up, making our overall job, which is going to be immense, in my view, easier? And that is a tough question.”

Because Correll is fact-o-phobic he resets the discussion to a generalized murky unarguable muck, so I asked a question in an attempt to bring Correll to a place where we can contain the discussion to be about specific language that our leaders used in the ramp up to invading Iraq. I asked the following:

What aspect of that comment do you think Is a lie?

To which @Corell issued a complaint, bitch and moan.

Why did you misrepresent what I said?

Will Correll ever engage in a discussion based on specific verifiable facts. Perhaps when pigs fly.

 

[Correll]

I was responding to your declaration that UN inspectors cannot verify the 1991 unilateral destruction of WMD AFTER the fact.

You cannot respond to the point so you make another format complaint. What else can you do?

What is the problem with questioning your bad behavior.



Are we supposed to coddle you because you are a white American cultural Christian who supports the killing of half a million Iraqis over a mistake.

I'm not sure what "bad behavior" you are referring to. And your constant referencing of my race and faith, makes you sound like a racist anti-Christian bigot.

I've said NOTHING that indicated that I want special treatment, especially special treatment based on my race or faith, so you "asking" that "question"


is just you being a racist, bigoted prick.

 

[Correll]

You lied. You said SH poked the bear after 1441. You cant teach anybody anything about Iraq.

Do you want to learn how to effectively spread your ideas of peace and thus reduce the likelihood of future wars and be partially responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives over time?

And I have been thinking about it. I can do it in TWO WORDS.

 

[Correll]

The invasion of Iraq was about taking WMD out of SH’s hands to remove a threat to our national security, to ensure peace and tranquillity in the region and nothing else.

Said the man that knows that is not the way normal people make decisions.

So, that is another lie.

 

[Correll]

I don’t have one. Thats a format complaint. I am here on this threat to present facts and confront lies and disinformation about the ramp up to war in Iraq.

It is not about format. It is about you. l am curious about your motivations. Your behavior is contrary to the purpose of this forum and quite dishonest, and it is disturbing to me your apparent lack of a self image.

 

[Correll]

When Correll was confronted with a direct quote by Senator Biden that I provided where he said that he considered giving the inspectors a few extra months brings no change in risk and would enhance building a coalition. Turns out Biden’s assessment in February 2003 was correct.

So Correll resorts to this:



There was no pretending. Biden’s analysis prior to the invasion is a fact and was a fact placed on the record at the time.
...

I got to here and could not stomach any more.


1. It is a fact that Biden said something.

2. That does not mean that what he said was true. Or even that he said it in good faith.

3. YOu believe that it was true. Fine.


But, you do not get to build shit on top of your assumptions about a statement of opinion.


I don't know where you were going with that, if there was a new point buried in taht pile of shit, you should not have buried it, your should have led with it and dropped the shit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“So I sit down and I say, the value--not the legitimacy, not the justness, not the equities--this guy does not deserve another tenth of a second, but by giving him another 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months and not moving until the next``cold,'' quote/unquote, season in their--in the late fall, what is the risk of doing that relative to the amount of support we would pick up, making our overall job, which is going to be immense, in my view, easier?

1. It is a fact that Biden said something.

2. That does not mean that what he said was true. Or even that he said it in good faith.

Stick to this one quote from Senator Biden a month before the invasion.

“So I sit down and I say, the value--not the legitimacy, not the justness, not the equities--this guy does not deserve another tenth of a second, but by giving him another 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months and not moving until the next``cold,'' quote/unquote, season in their--in the late fall, what is the risk of doing that relative to the amount of support we would pick up, making our overall job, which is going to be immense, in my view, easier?

On the date when Biden said this W was publicly considering whether or not it would be necessary to start a war in Iraq. Do you accept that as a fact Correll?

And in the above quote Biden expressed his thoughts about potential pending war in Iraq regarding the timetable and risks involved and the need for a Broad Coalition because he was also warning that in the event that war becomes necessary the task of maintaining order after toppling the dictator would be “immense”

So Correll what exactly do you consider in Biden’s words to not be true or not be said in good faith?

 

[surada]

The invasion of Iraq was about taking WMD out of SH’s hands to remove a threat to our national security, to ensure peace and tranquillity in the region and nothing else.

Except, Iraq was NOT a threat. Bibi Netanyahu wanted Saddam taken out. Read his Clean Break Strategy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

l am curious about your motivations.

Your assumptions about my motivations are false. My posts are for the purpose of presenting facts and refuting all myths lies and propaganda regarding the ramp up to the war in Iraq that W Started in March 2093.

You have shown no interest in assessing the facts on that and that makes it difficult for you to engage in an open and honest discussion so you attack motivation rather than to dispute the true facts.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I'm not sure what "bad behavior" you are referring to.

You made the false argument that UN inspectors cannot verify the 1991 unilateral destruction of WMD AFTER the fact. And when challenged that your point is literally impossible to be true and therefore a lie. You go apeshit nuts calling the facts I cited to debunk your lie - you call it spam - you say with no support for case that UN inspectors have no credibility. All on you say so.

HerE are the posts that I am referring to.


This was my factual response to you bogus claim:

That was one of the issues UNMOVIC on the work programme that Blix mentioned in his report to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003, ten days before the dumb war was started.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months

That was some nice spam. It certainly gave the illusion of being Authoritative, but without actually saying anything relevant.

That is bad behavior from a spoiked rotten child in a discussion forum where both sides are expected to bring use and challenge each dudes facts. You never do. You throw tantrums and diversions. You are incorrigible and a liar.

 

[Correll]

Stick to this one quote from Senator Biden a month before the invasion.



On the date when Biden said this W was publicly considering whether or not it would be necessary to start a war in Iraq. Do you accept that as a fact Correll?

And in the above quote Biden expressed his thoughts about potential pending war in Iraq regarding the timetable and risks involved and the need for a Broad Coalition because he was also warning that in the event that war becomes necessary the task of maintaining order after toppling the dictator would be “immense”

So Correll what exactly do you consider in Biden’s words to not be true or not be said in good faith?

You have a politician who voted for authorization of military action and then walked by his support with words after the fact.

To me, ALL of it is suspect as a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth, to cover his ass.