Did you Support War in Iraq??

Did you support the War in Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 32.5%
  • No

    Votes: 56 67.5%

  • Total voters
    83
Your argument here says otherwise. Were you angry and upset when it was confirmed by the warmonger Administration that the WMD used to justify the war was not found by the invading army?


My argument here is completely within the context of a war that happened historically.


I don't recall you asking ANY questions about my desire for peace. YOu assumed "bloodthirsty warmonger" and repeatedly dismissed anything and everything I said that contradicted your assumptions.


That is just you being a prick, not me being a warmonger.
 
My point was the only true point to be made about the ‘other’ or your ‘personal’ justification for getting half a million Iraqis killed is that it is not a disagreement. Your personal justification for the war is not valid. The nation building argument for war was not an argument to justify starting a war in the middle of ongoing peaceful inspections.

.....

your assertions are your personal opinion. That you state them as fact, is just you being a prick.


Your whining about the dead is unseemly, considering that you have accepted the concept of collateral damage.
 
No. I believe that a Liar such as yourself will always try to justify their lies by calling it a difference of opinion. That’s why we must seek out and I always try to stick to the facts.


Except I agreed with you that those shells did not mean that the WMDs, were found.


Did you really forget that "fact" or are you just so reflexively an asshole, that you just had to attack me, even though your attack made no sense?

I try to be consistent in my standards and ways of looking at events, in my search for the Truth.

YOU are the one that is literal and exactly when it serves your purpose to be so, and then changing to a more nuanced and intent based judgement when that works for you better.
 
Why do you limit the inspections process to only those two outcomes.

The step following verification of compliance was to set up long term monitoring. So you are wrong. There was no “Finish” to the disarming process after determining there were no ACTIVE WMD manufacturing and stockpiling activities going on so that sanctions could be lifted.


What does it matter? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you that you went back to rehash that?


If you are that bored and have that much time on your hands, ask me what the two words are, that could help you spread peace.
 
I’m sure you do. I’m guessing you consider yourself so much more important and valuable than the people of Iraq that you preferred they get some boot up the ass war and you get to keep you couch potato peace.

They could have had peace and learn their dictatorship didn't have the WMD that W sent the military to find. And they found none.


Man. Why are you such an asshole? Nothing I said justified this nonsense from you.
 
Man. Why are you such an asshole? Nothing I said justified this nonsense from you.


I UNDERSTAND YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE SENSELESS AND UNNECESSARY KILLING OF HALF A MILLION IRAQIS TO LOOK FOR WMD THAT WERE NOT. Don’t feel bad - no one can.
 
What does it matter?


Your arrogance is a serious problem.

When you say shit like there were only two options available to the inspectors you need to be straightened out. When you get straightened out I won’t go back to it.
 
I UNDERSTAND YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE SENSELESS AND UNNECESSARY KILLING OF HALF A MILLION IRAQIS TO LOOK FOR WMD THAT WERE NOT. Don’t feel bad - no one can.


So, you're dropping that shit about me considering myself more important than the Iraqis? How about you admit that was just you being an asshole before we move on?

And, I have spent months here, defending my support of the invasion, and doing a masterful job at it, so for you to state that I can't, is you being completely retarded and delusional.


Seriously. YOu are nothing but an hate spewing spam bot.
 
Your arrogance is a serious problem.

When you say shit like there were only two options available to the inspectors you need to be straightened out. When you get straightened out I won’t go back to it.


Fine. In theory IF the Saddam had managed to provide convincing documentation of the destruction of the wmds, which he did not do, AND managed to deescalate the confrontation with the US, to the point that war did not happen, AND, the US managed to maintain the support for the sanctions AND the inspectors were allowed to continue their monitoring process, AND the American President did not lose faith in them (which he should have) there is a chance that there would have been an option where the inspectors continued their process. Whoop de FUcking do.


So, how exactly does that slim chance matter?


That is not a rhetorical question. I want to hear it explained, in the normal fucking detail you go on about, because the alternative is you admit that you were just being a pedantic asshole.
 
This is a chain of relevant posts on the subject of the 1991 undocumented destruction of Iran-Iraq war era chemical agents and artillery shells.

You have multiple errors in your logic and arguments we are to be consistent with facts.


Can you see your errors on your own or do you need me to factually and honestly point them out.


it will prove with regard to Iraq that you strongly prefer war over peace.

"Forced by what" exactly? By whom?

The UNSC. W was required to give all the evidence he had to the inspectors. Up to the date of the invasion W said they gave the inspectors all the evidence they had. The inspectors found none of it to be credible. Three more months of indirections would forced W abandon if a claim that he had evidence when he announced his final decision disarm Iraq by killing civilians.

n interesting assumption. One that I never heard mentioned at the time.


Oh, well, moot now

Don't play stupid. We covered that.


My point stands

I hoped that the loss of civilian life would be minimal. I

IMO, they would have said anything to avoid war. Thus, they were not credible.

They were playing games , trying to avoid a war.

I don't recall giving it any thought. I probably just figured that he was in a waiting it out mode. It seems unlikely for him to try to manufacture significant weapons while inspectors are searching for shit.

Regardless, my point stands. The inspectors were not disarming him, they were going though the motions trying to use process to prevent a war.

The inspectors would have said anything to avoid war, perhaps with the limitation of covering their asses.

4. You again, hold President Bush, fully responsible for ALL teh deaths, thus letting everyone else off the hook.

NOTE: 4. (Above) is a s diversionary point made by Correll

He is. There were no hostilities from the Iraqi side when W started the invasion occupation and insurgency. Can you dispute that?

I don't really care if he stopped or not.

Except I agreed with you that those shells did not mean that the WMDs, were found.




IF the Saddam had managed to provide convincing documentation of the destruction of the wmds,

SH had no obligation to produce something impossible to produce. The issue applied to the ancient WMD that you said was not what W used to justify starting a war to find WMD.
 
Last edited:
This is a chain of relevant posts on the subject of the 1991 undocumented destruction of Iran-Iraq war era chemical agents and artillery shells.

You have multiple errors in your logic and arguments we are to be consistent with facts.


Can you see your errors on your own or do you need me to factually and honestly point them out.


it will prove with regard to Iraq that you strongly prefer war over peace.
































SH had no obligation to produce something impossible to produce. The issue applied to the ancient WMD that you said


Make your point, if it is not one we have dealt with many times before. Make it concisely, and without the partisan shit or whining about the collateral damage.
 
Make your point, if i

I made a point - You didn’t bother to read it. Follow the chain of posts if you believe language and words have meaning.

Maybe you will figure something out about how to really prevent another Iraq debacle.
 
Last edited:
I made a point - You didn’t bother to read it. Follow the chain of posts if you believe language and words have meaning.

Maybe you will figure something out about hue to really prevent another Iraq debacle.


You asked if I needed my "errors" pointed out. My point is obviously, I do. Because I see no problem with my chain of logic or my various positions you posted excerpts from.


I really hope this isn't one of those retarded things you do, where you make conflate related issues and then attack me for having different positions on related issues, as though it was having CONFLICTING positions on one issue,


when it isn't.


Because it would be retarded to spend as much time as you did, if it was that stupid.


So, drop the shit where you pretend that it is impossible for anyone to disagree with you. And make your point so I can address it.


AND like I said, save the partisan shit and the disgusting way you use dead children for ammo for your partisan attacks.
 
Correll asked me If SH … managed to deescalate the confrontation with the US,


Fine. In theory IF the Saddam had managed to provide convincing documentation of the destruction of the wmds, which he did not do, AND managed to deescalate the confrontation with the US,

The IRAQI side actual did do everything in its power to deescalate the confrontation.

And reports regarding the ancient WMD were very public;

U.N. destroying mustard gas shells Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Posted: 10:02 AM EST (1502 GMT)

The U.N. inspectors stressed at the time that the ammunition was expected to be there and not a sign of an active chemical weapons program.

Previous inspection teams destroyed thousands of chemical weapons shells and agents at al-Muthanna, according to U.N. officials.



The issue applied to the ancient WMD that you said was not what W used to justify starting a war to find WMD.

Make it concisely, and without the partisan shit or whining about the collateral damage.
 
Last edited:
I see no problem with my chain of logic or my various positions you posted excerpts from.


Of course you don’t. You spend most of your time obfuscating to avoid dealing with facts. That is how your arguments are always flawed and incompetent.
 
SH had no obligation to produce something impossible to produce.

Can you produce something that backs the idea that SH was obligated to produce something that was impossible to produce that you posed in your absurd hypothetical question?
Fine. In theory IF the Saddam had managed to provide convincing documentation of the destruction of the wmds, which he did not do, AND managed to deescalate the confrontation with the US, to the point that war did not happen, AND, the US managed to maintain the support for the sanctions AND the inspectors were allowed to continue their monitoring process, AND the American President did not lose faith in them (which he should have) there is a chance that there would have been an option where the inspectors continued their process. Whoop de FUcking do.

Or do you agree that you began the question with an illogical unreasonable fake “IF” ?
 
I UNDERSTAND YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE SENSELESS AND UNNECESSARY KILLING OF HALF A MILLION IRAQIS TO LOOK FOR WMD THAT WERE NOT. Don’t feel bad - no one can.

So, you're dropping that shit about me considering myself more important than the Iraqis?

Because you cannot defend your support for killing all those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis without lying and pushing disinformation and pleading ignorance the fact that yuh keep doing it leaves the impression that you consider yourself and the members of the tribe still with you in that regard more important than the people you support killing.
 
Of course you don’t. You spend most of your time obfuscating to avoid dealing with facts. That is how your arguments are always flawed and incompetent.


You asked if I needed to have my alleged "errors" pointed out. I have told you I do.

Now you are just talking shit for some reason.

Is it because you tried to point them out, and then when you saw your argument on the screen, you realized it was retarded?
 

Forum List

Back
Top