What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did you Support War in Iraq??

Did you support the War in Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 31.3%
  • No

    Votes: 55 68.8%

  • Total voters
    80

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
81,093
Reaction score
19,765
Points
2,220
Buden authorized use if military force only if determined to be necessary. His words in February 2002. indicate that he did not support starting the invasion prior to the inspectors finishing their work. So because Bush promised he would support the peaceful effort without a deadline Biden clearly stated that he did not support an invasion prior to the summer because if the immense task of keeping order in Muslim nation broken by war.

Biden was it covering his ass he was right. Bush invaded without a broad coalition and had no real plans and resources for dealing with the aftermath of regime change.

And half a million Iraqis died. And you support the incompetence and quagmire that Biden warned in advance was coming


You asked me why I thought that Biden's statement might not have been in good faith. I explained.

Your response barely touched upon the point.

YOu spent most of your time restating your core position. As though you are nothing but a lefty spam bot.


That shows that your previous question, was not in good faith.


Most of your discussion is like that. YOu are not really engaged in real dialog. My answers rarely serious matter to you. YOur questions are mostly accusations or just spamming your points.


YOu are just here to spread hate and division.



I could teach you to spread your ideal of Peace or at least being far more conservative in the use of War as policy, in TWO WORDS.


But, you are not interesting in that. THe fact that avoiding ONE WAR, could save hundreds of thousands of lives, even "the children" that you pretend to care so much about..


You don't care enough to ask. You would rather spam propaganda like a stupid bot.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
2,103
Points
245
you lost your argument at “we had already begun upgrading our defenses.

How did I lose the argument? You aren’t denying that our defenses were being upgraded prior to the start of the IRAQ $7 trillion quagmire that you support because you wanted to downs $7 trillion to fight the terrorists in a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists so we didn’t have to fight them over here.

What about the $7 trillion price tag for fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them under the Confederate Flag in Alabama? You avoided my most critical point.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
2,103
Points
245
You have a politician who voted for authorization of military action and then walked by his support with words after the fact.

You asked me why I thought that Biden's statement might not have been in good faith. I explained.

Your explanation (top quote) contained the fallacy that Biden supported W’s timing (MARCH 2003) to invade and supported the weak coalition that W mustered to invade to search for WMD.

Since it contained a fallacy it is not an explanation at all. And since you’ve been told about what Biden supported and you ignore it you are a liar..

The record show that Biden did not change his support it shows he has every right to say he told dumb-ass W so because W attacked Iraq absolutely unprepared for the aftermath of bringing down the regime.

Biden was right about being it better to wait - W was wrong. That is a fact.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
81,093
Reaction score
19,765
Points
2,220
Your explanation (top quote) contained the fallacy that Biden supported W’s timing (MARCH 2003) to invade and supported the weak coalition that W mustered to invade to search for WMD.

Since it contained a fallacy it is not an explanation at all. And since you’ve been told about what Biden supported and you ignore it you are a liar..

The record show that Biden did not change his support it shows he has every right to say he told dumb-ass W so because W attacked Iraq absolutely unprepared for the aftermath of bringing down the regime.

Biden was right about being it better to wait - W was wrong. That is a fact.


I made no mention of timing. Your statement is a lie.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
2,103
Points
245
IMO, the motive of the UN inspectors was PEACE AT ANY COST, which made their statements not credible. They have motive to lie.

House is it plausible that one of your ignorance based “opinions” can possibly ever render the UN inspectors’ professional statements not credible.

Only contradictory facts or some type of proven dishonesty on their part could make their statements not credible.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
2,103
Points
245
I made no mention of timing.


You are the liar. You accused Biden of walking back his support “after the fact.” That related to time.

But your lie is that Biden supported W’s decision to invade include the timing.

I know you are ignorant when it comes to understanding how language works but when you mentioned Biden’s support for the invasion of IRAQ you are including him being supportive of the premature ‘timing’ of when the invasion took place and his support for the weak coalition.

Why are you too stupid to understand that basic concept of communication.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
81,093
Reaction score
19,765
Points
2,220
You are the liar. You accused Biden of walking back his support “after the fact.” That related to time.

But your lie is that Biden supported W’s decision to invade include the timing.

I know you are ignorant when it comes to understanding how language works but when you mentioned Biden’s support for the invasion of IRAQ you are including him being supportive of the premature ‘timing’ of when the invasion took place and his support for the weak coalition.

Why are you too stupid to understand that basic concept of communication.


lol!! What a load of crap. I stopped reading at "Time".

Dude. TWO WORDS, and I can turn you from a spam spewing bot that no one cares about, to a serious advocate for peace, that could influence hundreds or thousands of people with your ideas.


That you don't care, shows what your real goal is, being an asshole and spreading hate and division.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
81,093
Reaction score
19,765
Points
2,220
You only read that far to figure out you are wrong and cannot counter my facts. its easy to tell when you are stuck.


TWO WORDS, and I can turn you from a spam spewing bot that no one cares about, to a serious advocate for peace, that could influence hundreds or thousands of people with your ideas.


That you don't care, shows what your real goal is, being an asshole and spreading hate and division.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
2,103
Points
245
TWO WORDS,

How about trying to refute the facts I just handed over to you about Biden never supporting the premature time line and weak coalition that W used to invade Iraq. Before W decided to be stupid and invade Iraq Biden warned W it would get ugly. And it did. Half a million Iraqis died.

So I take it your eagerness to run from this point about Biden and timing is evidence that you have no challenge to the actual facts that is put before your.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
2,103
Points
245
TWO WORDS

I told you I do not accept instruction from known and wanton liars. IF I wanted to be taught by liars I’d join the Trump cult. Never will do that being of sound mind and spirit and vaccinated.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
2,103
Points
245
TWO WORDS, and I can turn you from a spam spewing bot that no one cares about, to a serious advocate for peace, that could influence hundreds or thousands of people with your ideas.

I’m not advocating for world peace, I’m advocating against right wing arrogance, lies, disinformation and right wing ignorance about the purpose, cost and morality of US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Curtailing that, peace will have a chance on its own when it is right. War is still necessary when it is justified by more than a political party and its political ambition.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
81,093
Reaction score
19,765
Points
2,220
How about trying to refute the facts I just handed over to you about Biden never supporting the premature time line and weak coalition that W used to invade Iraq. Before W decided to be stupid and invade Iraq Biden warned W it would get ugly. And it did. Half a million Iraqis died.

So I take it your eagerness to run from this point about Biden and timing is evidence that you have no challenge to the actual facts that is put before your.


We've gone over this for months. You want to just recover the same ground, because your goal is not to move the discussion forward, or really even to have a discussion,

but just to spam lefty talking points, like a spam bot.


You are not debating in good faith. YOu are just here to push anti-American propaganda. And you know it.


TWO WORDS, and I can turn you from a spam spewing bot that no one cares about, to a serious advocate for peace, that could influence hundreds or thousands of people with your ideas.


That you don't care, shows what your real goal is, being an asshole and spreading hate and division.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
81,093
Reaction score
19,765
Points
2,220
I told you I do not accept instruction from known and wanton liars. IF I wanted to be taught by liars I’d join the Trump cult. Never will do that being of sound mind and spirit and vaccinated.


Your excuse for not being open to constructive criticism is noted and dismissed.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
81,093
Reaction score
19,765
Points
2,220
I’m not advocating for world peace, I’m advocating against right wing arrogance, lies, disinformation and right wing ignorance about the purpose, cost and morality of US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Curtailing that, peace will have a chance on its own when it is right. War is still necessary when it is justified by more than a political party and its political ambition.


So, you are ok with collateral damage, as long as the war is run by a leftwing administration.

Do you realize that that proves me right, that your hysterical whining about the dead civilians was just you putting on a show for propaganda purposes?
 

LeftofLeft

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
15,585
Reaction score
7,071
Points
390
How did I lose the argument? You aren’t denying that our defenses were being upgraded prior to the start of the IRAQ $7 trillion quagmire that you support because you wanted to downs $7 trillion to fight the terrorists in a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists so we didn’t have to fight them over here.

What about the $7 trillion price tag for fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them under the Confederate Flag in Alabama? You avoided my most critical point.
You are conflating different things.

1. “Upgrading our Defense (and intel)” - it would take a good 4-6 years before our D & I infrastructure wood be sufficient.

2. 9-11 Terrorists had nothing to do with Iraq - I have never made that argument. The argument I made was that Iraq was a threat. The terrorists were out of Saudi. It was orchestrated out of Afghanistan. We initially went into Afghanistan. AT THE TIME, the intelligence we had on hand had Iraq as a threat. My argument was that by taking out Saddam’s Iraq, it drew terrorists and terrorist agents from other countries out of hiding and into Iraq to fight as opposed to terrorists going to Afghanistan to fight us.

Was $7T and lives lost a hefty price to pay, absolutely. The way I took the original post to mean was At The Time, should we have gone in vs. In Hindsight, should we have gone in.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
81,093
Reaction score
19,765
Points
2,220
You are conflating different things.

1. “Upgrading our Defense (and intel)” - it would take a good 4-6 years before our D & I infrastructure wood be sufficient.

2. 9-11 Terrorists had nothing to do with Iraq - I have never made that argument. The argument I made was that Iraq was a threat. The terrorists were out of Saudi. It was orchestrated out of Afghanistan. We initially went into Afghanistan. AT THE TIME, the intelligence we had on hand had Iraq as a threat. My argument was that by taking out Saddam’s Iraq, it drew terrorists and terrorist agents from other countries out of hiding and into Iraq to fight as opposed to terrorists going to Afghanistan to fight us.

Was $7T and lives lost a hefty price to pay, absolutely. The way I took the original post to mean was At The Time, should we have gone in vs. In Hindsight, should we have gone in.


Not loves to do shit like that, just assign you arguments or take statements out of context and apply them to different questions.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
2,103
Points
245
The argument I made was that Iraq was a threat.

Why was Iraq a threat with 200 UN inspectors on the ground with Iraq cooperating as it had never done before.

W didn’t believe that an Iraq hat was peacefully disarmed of WMD was a threat specifically when that status was verified by the UNSC upon completion of inspections. It was W that forced the end of inspections in March 2003. It was not SH.

So how do you accept the notion that Iraq was a threat knowing that W was wrong about WMD?

That question is not a matter of having 20-20 hindsight because the inspectors on the ground in Iraq with Iraq’s full cooperation for several months is what eliminated the only credible threat that leaving SH in power posed.

If W truly had solid intelligence from somewhere on the planet he obligated America to turn it over to the inspectors. Yes W obligated America to share intelligence such as that with the UN. Had he done so the inspectors would have shot it down rather quickly because there was no WMD being hidden.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
81,093
Reaction score
19,765
Points
2,220
Why was Iraq a threat with 200 UN inspectors on the ground with Iraq cooperating as it had never done before.

W didn’t believe that an Iraq that was peacefully disarmed of WMD and that status was verified by the UNSC upon completion of inspections. It was W that forced the end of inspections in March 2003. It was not SH.

So how do you accept the notion that Iraq was a threat knowing that W was wrong about WMD?

That question is not a matter of having 20-20 hindsight because the inspectors on the ground in Iraq with Iraq’s full cooperation for several months is what eliminated the only credible threat that leaving SH in power posed.

If W truly had solid intelligence from somewhere on the planet he obligated America to turn it over to the inspectors. Yes W obligated America to share intelligence such as that with the UN. Had he done so the inspectors would have shot it down rather quickly because there was no WMD being hidden.

He answered that in the portion of the post you cut away.


That was an asshole move on your part, to cut away his post, ask a question, or should I say, "ask" a "question",


and then talk on and on, just spewing additional leftard talking points, instead of waiting for the answer, which we both know you don't care about, because you question was not really a question.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top