Did you Support War in Iraq??

[whutTHEYsay]

The fact that now that "context" works to support your current limited point, suddenly you discovered it, and support it, when previously it was like speaking greek to you.

That’s another format complaint. What is wrong with the way I used the word according to what it means?

Everything I say is tied to context. My facts are always tied to context.

When your retarded pal says that !!Hallelujah!! WMD was found in Iraq without the context and distinction that it was inoperable junkyard shit he is lying when he ties it to W found the WMD that he used to justify the invasion.

And you condone and respect that liar and his out of context lie.

And so you go to your bit where you ***** and moan about format. You are such a predictable piece of work.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

He is being literal

You are a liar..He is not being literal when he goes beyond:

They found WMD in Iraq.

That is being literal. That’s fine. Stupid but fine.

But your retarded warmongering pal goes well beyond being literal when he says:

They found the WMD in Iraq that W Used to justify starting the war.

They found WMD in Iraq so that proves W was right because SH was hiding WMD from inspectors.

That is a lie. It is lying by omission of the pertinent and critical fact that W does not include old rusty shells in what he considered at the time had an influence on his decision to invade Iraq.

He sent TROOPS to find ‘real’ WMD not a ******* ‘technically correct’ version that were rusting out on junk pikes for 20 years.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Context? WTF? Irrelevant? WTF???

whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.

In what you call a “debate” leading up to the war the warmonger side provided estimates as to how much “Being Greeted as Liberators” was gonna cost?

Here is an example of what the warmongering side pushed with their enthusiasm for invading Iraq:

*** In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 15 years ago, one factor in the debate was the notion that the the war would almost pay for itself.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

“The oil revenue of that country could bring between $50 [billion] and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years,” Paul Wolfowitz, then the U.S deputy secretary of defense, told a congressional panel in March 2003. “We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” ***

And now after the fact you you want to impose a ban on criticizing the warmonger’s cost over-run of $6.9 trillion.

It is when those who Consider the astronomical cost of the war in lives and dollars to be a success.

You want us to call a cost-overrun of $7 trillion (DJT numbers) that killed half a million Iraqis a success.

Nope. DIscussing the scale of the stakes is not relevant to discussing the fact that we had the national discussion and your side failed to make it's case.

We HAD a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion.

How about discussing the corrupt push for war In THE ******* CONTEXT of all the death and maiming it caused and the horrendous failure to predict the anticipated cost instead of your stupid notion that the warmongers won the debate; goodnight.

That is one of the most stupid of the many stupid things you say.



**** "[Congressional Budget Office] estimates a price tag of $14 billion for the war itself and $8 billion to $10 billion a month, for an unspecified period, after hostilities cease," Pethokoukis and Benjamin wrote in 2003.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/p...timated-costs-and-price-tag-of-the-iraq-warSo why

The Bush administration estimated the war would cost $50 to $60 billion, including the costs of reconstruction and clean up. As of 2013, the Cost of War Project estimates the war has cost $1.7 trillion—nearly 30 times the pre-war estimate. That cost doesn't factor in future costs of veterans' care, which push the total to more than $2.1 trillion. The Veterans Administration spending related to Iraq—which totals $45 billion—is almost as much as the Bush administration's overall cost estimate. ****

 

[Correll]

The party that has an opinion that is wholly dependent on an obvious lie is a liar.


For example your opinion that SH did not cooperate with the 1441 inspectors that is based on your flat out lie that SH continued to “poke the bear” is a lie.

It is not based on any slightest sliver of reality or any reported observations of the events taking place after 1441 was passed.

You are a liar.

I refuse to believe you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.

 

[Correll]

I asked you specifically when SH ‘poked the bear’ after 1441 was passed.



That is an important question that you keep avoiding providing a direct answer.

SH ceased poking the bear after the summer of 2002 when the US and UK increased air strikes in preparation for an invasion.

Before that SH poked the bear all the time. I am not ignoring that history.

You poke the bear long enough, and it just stopping, is not enough.

You do realize that, right? YOu are just playing silly games now, right?

 

[Correll]

You are a liar. SH violated nothing after 1441 was passed. W violated 1441 when he attacked to disarm Iraq violently.

Correll was not a UN inspector at the time. His conclusion that SH was not cooperating means nothing and he is a liar.

Nonsensical gibberish.

 

[Correll]

You said our troops found what they were looking for when they came up with some rusty old junkyard artillery shells that were classified as chemical weapons and Correll informed us that the old junk pile shells are technically considered WMD.

But W says They were not what he sent the troops to look for.

Once President Bush sent policy, it was not longer just his opinion that mattered. The search for WMDs, were formal AMERICAN policy and the weapons found technically meet that the search was completed.


Your denial of this simple FACT, is just you revealing once again your lack of good faith.

 

[Correll]

Correll do you agree that struth knows why Senator Biden voted to authorize military force against Iraq?

I certainly agree that normal people do not make decisions based on single reasons. Only someone deeply autistic or completely ignorant could think otherwise.

 

[Correll]

Quit the dishonesty. I’ve mentioned my full support on his decision take out the Taliban after 911. He just should have stuck with the war on terror against the nation state that support the terrorists that attacked us.

But now you are talking like his is an Authority on what words mean, more so than dictionaries.


That is a whole new level of respect. Which is only of course, because now he agrees with you.

 

[Correll]

That’s another format complaint. What is wrong with the way I used the word according to what it means?

Everything I say is tied to context. My facts are always tied to context.

When your retarded pal says that !!Hallelujah!! WMD was found in Iraq without the context and distinction that it was inoperable junkyard shit he is lying when he ties it to W found the WMD that he used to justify the invasion.

And you condone and respect that liar and his out of context lie.

And so you go to your bit where you ***** and moan about format. You are such a predictable piece of work.

You are ignoring the massive numbers of times when you have ignored context. You are being insanely dishonest. INSANELY.

 

[Correll]

You are a liar..He is not being literal when he goes beyond:

They found WMD in Iraq.

That is being literal. That’s fine. Stupid but fine.

But your retarded warmongering pal goes well beyond being literal when he says:

They found the WMD in Iraq that W Used to justify starting the war.

They found WMD in Iraq so that proves W was right because SH was hiding WMD from inspectors.

That is a lie. It is lying by omission of the pertinent and critical fact that W does not include old rusty shells in what he considered at the time had an influence on his decision to invade Iraq.

He sent TROOPS to find ‘real’ WMD not a ******* ‘technically correct’ version that were rusting out on junk pikes for 20 years.

IF President Bush, wanted to specify which WMDs he was searching for, when he crafted his policy, he should have done so.

But, he did not. He crafted the policy and when it was enacted, it became AMERCIAN POLICY, not just his. At that point he ceased being the Judge of what meant it or did not.


ANY American is fully empowered now, to say whether or not, meeting the literal letter of the policy is good enough for them, or not.


If you were not autistic, you would be able to understand this.

 

[Correll]

Context? WTF? Irrelevant? WTF???



In what you call a “debate” leading up to the war the warmonger side provided estimates as to how much “Being Greeted as Liberators” was gonna cost?

Here is an example of what the warmongering side pushed with their enthusiasm for invading Iraq:

*** In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 15 years ago, one factor in the debate was the notion that the the war would almost pay for itself.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

“The oil revenue of that country could bring between $50 [billion] and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years,” Paul Wolfowitz, then the U.S deputy secretary of defense, told a congressional panel in March 2003. “We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” ***

And now after the fact you you want to impose a ban on criticizing the warmonger’s cost over-run of $6.9 trillion.



You want us to call a cost-overrun of $7 trillion (DJT numbers) that killed half a million Iraqis a success.







How about discussing the corrupt push for war In THE ******* CONTEXT of all the death and maiming it caused and the horrendous failure to predict the anticipated cost instead of your stupid notion that the warmongers won the debate; goodnight.

That is one of the most stupid of the many stupid things you say.



**** "[Congressional Budget Office] estimates a price tag of $14 billion for the war itself and $8 billion to $10 billion a month, for an unspecified period, after hostilities cease," Pethokoukis and Benjamin wrote in 2003.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/p...timated-costs-and-price-tag-of-the-iraq-warSo why

The Bush administration estimated the war would cost $50 to $60 billion, including the costs of reconstruction and clean up. As of 2013, the Cost of War Project estimates the war has cost $1.7 trillion—nearly 30 times the pre-war estimate. That cost doesn't factor in future costs of veterans' care, which push the total to more than $2.1 trillion. The Veterans Administration spending related to Iraq—which totals $45 billion—is almost as much as the Bush administration's overall cost estimate. ****

Sorry. Your death porn whining about the dead, is kind of disgusting considering that you have admitted that that is not the reason you opposed the war.


You have admitted that you accept the concept of collateral damage. It was only the lack of...


well, I'm not going to try to paraphrase your position because no matter what I say, you will whine like a ****** over some minor sematic point.


BUT, your reason for opposing the war was NOT THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE, so your whining about it is a LIE.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You have admitted that you accept the concept of collateral damage.

In a defensive war you moron. The Iraq invasion was a war of choice when there was no connect to the September 2011 terrorist attacks. Again you ignore context.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Sorry. Your death porn whining about the dead, is kind of disgusting considering that you have admitted that that is not the reason you opposed the war.

No response to the content of the subject post. Just another ***** about format as yuh distort my position on collateral damage.

I must assume you agree that a $7 trillion cost overrun combined with the incompetence at nation building that killed Half a million Iraqis is a bad thing and should not be referred to as a success.

You did not respond to the point.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

At that point he ceased being the Judge of what meant it or did not.

Such fantastic bullshit you can pull out if your as you bumbling idiot.

He judged it you bleeping moron:

President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and 'Nothing' to Do With 9/11
STORYAUGUST 22, 2006

the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ANY American is fully empowered now, to say whether or not, meeting the literal letter of the policy is good enough for them, or not.

Fully empowered ????? You are a moron posting such nonsense.

Are you vaccinated?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I refuse to believe you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.

Where is you evidence that SH poked the bear after 1441? You are a liar since you hsve nothing.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You poke the bear long enough, and it just stopping, is not enough.

So he stopped. Is that your answer warmonger?

 

[Correll]

In a defensive war you moron. The Iraq invasion was a war of choice when there was no connect to the September 2011 terrorist attacks. Again you ignore context.

Really? You only accept collateral damage in cases on defensive war? Then ALL the talk of the details of Bush's actions and the UN inspectors, was irrelevant to you, because no matter what, you were against the war based on the principle of Defensive War.


Man, that was kind of a dick move on your part to spend so much time talking about shit that you didn't really give a damn about.


Lincoln. His war was not defensive. He could have easily let the South go, and had peace. FDR, if he had not waged economic warfare on Japan, he could have sat out WWII.

 

[Correll]

No response to the content of the subject post. Just another ***** about format as yuh distort my position on collateral damage.

I must assume you agree that a $7 trillion cost overrun combined with the incompetence at nation building that killed Half a million Iraqis is a bad thing and should not be referred to as a success.

You did not respond to the point.

When you post a post that is stuffed full of crap, that is on you.


I addressed what stood out as most "relevant" to me.


I made ONE point. You choose to not address it.