Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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?

Or do you agree that you began the question with an illogical unreasonable fake “IF” ?

1. I've repeatedly explained my reasoning on that. Your pretense that I have not, is you playing a stupid rhetorical game.

2. I conceded a point. yes, there was an additional option. SO WHAT THE FUCK DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO THIS DISCUSSION OR ANYTHING?


You made a big fucking deal out of it, like it was a big fucking deal. SO, now explain what is the BIG FUCKING DEAL?

 

[Correll]

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.

You seem to have a very confused idea about what war is.


A man that supports war as a policy, is not saying that he considered his enemies less than him. Though that often follows as a coping mechanism to deal with the reality of killing your enemies.


Supporting war as a policy is an belief in a conflict of interests between two (or more) nations that needs to be resolved though force. It says nothing about the moral value of the lives of the other side.


My father and most of his brothers were WWII vets. Today, one of my best friends is ethnically German. My wife is half Italian.


You're making all kind of, really, really, REALLY, stupid assumptions and then being a complete asshole based on your stupid assumptions.


Seriously, NOt. There is something wrong with you. You should try to be not like this. You can be a lefty, without being a complete asshole.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A man that supports war as a policy,

What policy? Its ok to intentionally kill Muslims but hope it’s not way too many to give their survivors a better life in a liberal western style democracy?

That argument? That policy? You are quite the warmonger when you support that policy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Biden or Cheney?

Supporting war as a policy is an belief in a conflict of interests between two (or more) nations that needs to be resolved though force.

There were two primary competing policies going on during the seven month ‘national debate’ phase that began leading into September 2002 and ended on March 17 2003 effectively unresolved. Unfortunately the CHENEY POLICY was chosen in the end by the decision maker.

So:

On March 17 2003 as you watched W The Decider announce to the world that the UN Inspectors had to get out of Iraq because the US Military was about to begin its Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe War invasion policy, did you agree with Dick Cheney to take the regime down in order to disarm Iraq without any UN support or did you agree with Joe Biden who says Bush should have waited to get full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence before invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and to have the world’s full support and commitment for the enormous task ahead to nation build Iraq into a successful democracy?

I’d like to have you on the record regarding the anti/UN Blitzkrieg ‘do it now’ Iraq invasion policy or the Biden ‘slow it down’ get the UN on board in order to resolve the conflict of interest regarding WMD between Iraq and most of the world’s nations.

DId you support Cheney or Biden policy at the time?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I fully supported taking out Saddam, but I supported using special forces and more covert operations then a fully scale war.

Does your opposition to massive ground troops and nation building translate into non-support of the chosen invasion war policy by massive ground troops to be greeted as liberators and then leave the nation building to Iran and the Iraqis to be paid for by oil revenue.

If you support the Cheney Wolfowitz Iraq invasion policy could you please tell us what changed your mind about using a few Special Forces instead of tens of thousands of boots on the ground?

 

[struth]

Does your opposition to massive ground troops and nation building translate into non-support of the chosen invasion war policy by massive ground troops to be greeted as liberators and then leave the nation building to Iran and the Iraqis to be paid for by oil revenue.

If you support the Cheney Wolfowitz Iraq invasion policy could you please tell us what changed your mind about using a few Special Forces instead of tens of thousands of boots on the ground?

huh? i totally disapprove of obama and xiden turning iraq over to terrorist and iran

we should of continued to help rebuild the country we liberated.

That move by Xiden and Obama was horrible and hand/has lasting consequences.

We very much would of had a different landscape in the ME had they not been in charge

as stated, yes i would have attempted first to use special forces to take out saddam and his inner circle.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

i totally disapprove of obama and xiden turning iraq over to terrorist and iran

When was Iraq “turned over” to terrorists?

What does”turned over to terrorists” actually mean?

Since regime change in 2003 the subsequent regimes in Iraq have never ever been taken over or controlled by terrorists.

 

[Correll]

What policy? Its ok to intentionally kill Muslims but hope it’s not way too many to give their survivors a better life in a liberal western style democracy?

That argument? That policy? You are quite the warmonger when you support that policy.

Stripped of your spin, and you being an asshole, and you are still missing the point.

And no, that is not being a "warmonger". That is basically what we did both to Germany and Japan.

The goal was not to "give the survivors a better life" you fag drama queen, but to push back in the War of Ideas, against Islamic Fundamentalism.


Why do you find it necessary to lie about my positions before you address them?


Doesn't that tell you something about yourself and your position, that you have to lie about mine?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

as stated, yes i would have attempted first to use special forces to take out saddam and his inner circle.

Therefore you wanted Iraq war policy in your mind to be to liberate Iraq with a very clean and cheap limited number of Special Ops to kill SH and Sons and have nothing to do with the chaos that would follow and therefore absolutely nothing to do with helping ……

rebuild the country we liberated.

I’m wondering if Correll sees the fallacy in your ability to think and participate in a reasonable discussion about why struth supports the original architects of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to disarm Iraq if WMD that turned out not to be there.

 

[Correll]

Biden or Cheney?


There were two primary competing policies going on during the seven month ‘national debate’ phase that began leading into September 2002 and ended on March 17 2003 effectively unresolved. Unfortunately the CHENEY POLICY was chosen in the end by the decision maker.

So:

On March 17 2003 as you watched W The Decider announce to the world that the UN Inspectors had to get out of Iraq because the US Military was about to begin its Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe War invasion policy, did you agree with Dick Cheney to take the regime down in order to disarm Iraq without any UN support or did you agree with Joe Biden who says Bush should have waited to get full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence before invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and to have the world’s full support and commitment for the enormous task ahead to nation build Iraq into a successful democracy?

I’d like to have you on the record regarding the anti/UN Blitzkrieg ‘do it now’ Iraq invasion policy or the Biden ‘slow it down’ get the UN on board in order to resolve the conflict of interest regarding WMD between Iraq and most of the world’s nations.

DId you support Cheney or Biden policy at the time?

I'm already on the record repeatedly about that. You are trying the circular debating tactic again. Knock off the shit, wally.


The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives.


That is just you, AGAIN, (still?) making assumptions and then being an asshole based on those assumptions.


And that seems to be your primary goal here. To gin up reasons for you to be an asshole and spread hate and division.


I repeat, with TWO WORDS, I can teach you to be a far more effective speaker, in spreading your anti-war or pro-peace ideas.


I have no even CHALLENGED you to ask or any such ego based thing. I have mentioned it, and you don't care.


Because, you goal is does not have ANYTHING to do with war or peace or even the lives of the dead that you pretend to care so much about.


Your goal is to spread hate and division.


I have repeatedly asked you why. You refuse to address it at all.


Your motives, must be very dark, if as bad as you look already, you are still afraid to open up as to why.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That is basically what we did both to Germany and Japan.

When you convince me that Iraq was the most powerful military in earth and was on a path of world domination or that Iraq had a “Pearl Harbor” moment in March 2003 then we can talk about Germany and Japan.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I'm already on the record repeatedly about that

No you are not. You are a liar.

 

[surada]

huh? i totally disapprove of obama and xiden turning iraq over to terrorist and iran

we should of continued to help rebuild the country we liberated.

That move by Xiden and Obama was horrible and hand/has lasting consequences.

We very much would of had a different landscape in the ME had they not been in charge

as stated, yes i would have attempted first to use special forces to take out saddam and his inner circle.

Saddam was NO threat to the US or his neighbors. Iraq was crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions. Israel wanted the Iraq war. Read CLEAN BREAK STRATEGY.

 

[Correll]

Therefore you wanted Iraq war policy in your mind to be to liberate Iraq with a very clean and cheap limited number of Special Ops to kill SH and Sons and have nothing to do with the chaos that would follow and therefore absolutely nothing to do with helping ……


I’m wondering if Correll sees the fallacy in your ability to think and participate in a reasonable discussion about why struth supports the original architects of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to disarm Iraq if WMD that turned out not to be there.

Dude. Don't try to be cute. YOu suck at it. You suck at a lot of shit. You have a point, you need to practice making it clearly and concisely, with as little added bullshit as possible.


I have no idea what stupid "gotcha" you thing you stumbled on above. Just say it. Or not. Don't dance around it like a little ballet princess.

 

[Correll]

When you convince me that Iraq was the most powerful military in earth and was on a path of world domination or that Iraq had a “Pearl Harbor” moment in March 2003 then we can talk about Germany and Japan.

The point we were discussing was about changing a nation into something more useful to us as a goal of a war.


Nothing in that required them to be of a certain scale of threat. That was irrelevant to the point.


That was obvious. You are obviously using a stupid excuse to avoid addressing the historical evidence I used to support my point.


My point stands. You act as though my reason for supporting the war was stupid and evul, yet it is something we have done, repeatedly, though war, in the past, with excellent results.


Are you willing to address that seriously and honestly now, or do you want to play some more stupid games?

 

[Correll]

No you are not. You are a liar.

I'm already on the record repeatedly about that. You are trying the circular debating tactic again. Knock off the shit, wally.


The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives.


That is just you, AGAIN, (still?) making assumptions and then being an asshole based on those assumptions.


And that seems to be your primary goal here. To gin up reasons for you to be an asshole and spread hate and division.


I repeat, with TWO WORDS, I can teach you to be a far more effective speaker, in spreading your anti-war or pro-peace ideas.


I have no even CHALLENGED you to ask or any such ego based thing. I have mentioned it, and you don't care.


Because, you goal is does not have ANYTHING to do with war or peace or even the lives of the dead that you pretend to care so much about.


Your goal is to spread hate and division.


I have repeatedly asked you why. You refuse to address it at all.


Your motives, must be very dark, if as bad as you look already, you are still afraid to open up as to why.

 

[Correll]

Saddam was NO threat to the US or his neighbors. Iraq was crippled by 20 years of war and sanctions. Israel wanted the Iraq war. Read CLEAN BREAK STRATEGY.

Irrelevant to every point that he made. Why did you even reply?

 

[surada]

The point we were discussing was about changing a nation into something more useful to us as a goal of a war.


Nothing in that required them to be of a certain scale of threat. That was irrelevant to the point.


That was obvious. You are obviously using a stupid excuse to avoid addressing the historical evidence I used to support my point.


My point stands. You act as though my reason for supporting the war was stupid and evul, yet it is something we have done, repeatedly, though war, in the past, with excellent results.


Are you willing to address that seriously and honestly now, or do you want to play some more stupid games?

"The point we were discussing was about changing a nation into something more useful to us as a goal of a war."

That's the soul of the UGLY AMERICAN. So why not attack Scotland or Nigeria?

 

[surada]

Irrelevant to every point that he made. Why did you even reply?

Because I know Iraq and the Middle East. Your reasoning is disgusting.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I'm already on the record repeatedly about that

You are lying. Why are you avoiding answering a question that had not been asked before?

I need to know because Biden had the more realistic and sensible nation building policy and you say you were really big on nation building at the time.

The Cheney Iraq invasion Policy was to knock out SH along with his army and police. And the result of that would be to be greeted as liberators. The Cheney policy did not need fucking UN support because the secondary policy of nation building was to be no big deal and paid by Iraq’s oil sales. The Kurds Shiites and Sunnis and Christians in iraq would all come together and embrace a liberal Jeffersonian representative democracy.

The Cheney policy had no anticipation of a high cost and five year plus battle to do nation building while fighting a deadly insurgency.

You have indicated that you anticipated a high cost to do your policy of taking out SH primarily in order to do the grand scheme of nation building because Iraq was a good candidate for that.

So I want you on record that you support and still support Cheney’s Iraq invasion policy as opposed to Biden’s prewar argument against the notion that liberating Iraq would be as easy as Cheney was selling.



To refresh your memory:

*** Host Tim Russert asked whether "we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney replied: "I disagree."

*** He wouldn't say how many troops were needed, but he added that "to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2005/06/21/how-cheney-fooled-himself/02e5a6a2-81ff-47ed-a713-6a2e0b68810f/

*** Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

*** Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."


Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"
Cheney: "They have so far." And the vice president concluded: "I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."