Did you Support War in Iraq??

[whutTHEYsay]

You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.


My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.

When was it announced that you speak for all Americans?

 

[Correll]

So why did you bring up Clinton?

To make the point that the conflict between America and Saddam was not just something that George W. Bush, caused. It was a continuing conflict.

 

[surada]

To make the point that the conflict between America and Saddam was not just something that George W. Bush, caused. It was a continuing conflict.

LOLOL.. Everyone knew Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. Maybe Bush wanted to win favor with Iran.

 

[Correll]

It is most relevant because you cited Gingrich as a source of inspiration that helped to produce your support for starting a war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis.

He was an architect of the war and nine months in he sees it going to shit so he openly objects to what W and all his Lieutenants were doing.

And you trusted that white Christian moron for advice on starting a war in a Muslim country and you want to say his objections after the war and occupation started are not relevant.

I understand when you don’t know how to respond so you need to end it and run away in a new direction.

I did not "trust" him. I found his reasoning to be compelling.

That he had complaints later, does not change that.

You are not making a point here. What do you think this shows?

 

[Correll]

Your fact-shy focus is on format and mind-reading.

i spent months discussing the invasion with you. That you failed to ask any real questions, or when you did, you chose to not follow them up,

is on you.


I am kind of done with that shit. You have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you are not really interested in the Iraqi War, so much as just using it to spew hate and division.

 

[Correll]

LOLOL.. Everyone knew Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. Maybe Bush wanted to win favor with Iran.

That's stupid. That makes no sense. Seriously, wtf are you doing?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

And, I have spent months here, defending my support of the invasion, and doing a masterful job at it,

You cannot defend your premise that SH was required to do something that was impossible to do.

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?

You never defend yourself when you are challenged. Never. That is buy one example.

That you failed to ask any real questions, or when you did, you chose to not follow them up.

Didn’t know there was an expiration date on following up on questions.


The record shows the questions you refuse to answer are conveniently categorized as not real or irrelevant or based on bad motives.

Its telling that you consider yourself so wise and powerful that you get to decide what questions are real and what questions are not. What points are relevant and what points are not.

And you are a liar because I know it’s a fact that I never asked you the question about Biden and Cheney until today. And it touched off another major piss and moan fit.

You say you are masterfully at defending your support for the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis but you won’t say that you if supported the Cheney nation building policy where we were to be “greeted as liberators” and **** the UN or if you supported the Biden nation building policy to take time to get the UN support needed because nation building was going to be tough and . would take a long time.


Or is there some other nation building war policy that you have not told us about?

 

[Correll]

You cannot defend your premise that SH was required to do something that was impossible to do.



You never defend yourself when you are challenged. Never. That is buy one example.



Didn’t know there was an expiration date on following up on questions.


The record shows the questions you refuse to answer are conveniently categorized as not real or irrelevant or based on bad motives.

Its telling that you consider yourself so wise and powerful that you get to decide what questions are real and what questions are not. What points are relevant and what points are not.

And you are a liar because I know it’s a fact that I never asked you the question about Biden and Cheney until today. And it touched off another major piss and moan fit.

You say you are masterfully at defending your support for the invasion that ended up killing half a million Iraqis but you won’t say that you if supported the Cheney nation building policy where we were to be “greeted as liberators” and **** the UN or if you supported the Biden nation building policy to take time to get the UN support needed because nation building was going to be tough and . would take a long time.


Or is there some other nation building war policy that you have not told us about?

You posted a list of almost questions. I asked you to drop the bullshit partisan spin, which seems to be your primary goal, and pick one of them, to ask as a real question, and I offered to answer it fully, if you did that.


Instead, you choose to double down on the partisan shit spin, because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, THAT is your primary goal.


You want to spew partisan shit, like a spam bot, so that you can spread hate and division.


Want to prove me wrong?

STOP with the shit. STOP with the circular debating technique. Pick one of the almost questions, and ask it seriously without spamming your own post with retarded faggotry, like "bloodthirsty warmonger" or "White Christian Nationalist" and I will GLADLY give real discussion a try.

And then, you will immediately run away. Because you are not prepared to face real debate.


THe only question is, can you even brink yourself to even try, before you fail.



Now, go. Fail now, or fail in a post or two.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You posted a list of almost questions. I asked you to drop the bullshit partisan spin, which seems to be your primary goal, and pick one of them, to ask as a real question, and I offered to answer it fully, if you did that.

You make no sense. just answer any question honestly without pissing and moaning all over the place.


Did you support regime change based on Cheney piece of cake **** the UN policy where the oil paid for the reconstructed or did you support the Biden policy going through the UN because the reconstruction was gonna be a tough long slog and the American people were not going to be committed to a long protected war.?

Which one?

 

[Correll]

You make no sense. just answer any question honestly without pissing and moaning all over the place.


Did you support regime change based on Cheney piece of cake **** the UN policy where the oil paid for the reconstructed or did you support the Biden policy going through the UN because the reconstruction was gonna be a tough long slog and the American people were not going to be committed to a long protected war.?

Which one?

As I have told you many times, I supported the decision to invade Iraq.


I considered that Saddam was never going to stop ******* around, and that going in and installing a democratic government could be a strong and healthy push back against Islamic Fundamentalism, in the War of Ideas.


I was concerned about the various types of cost, but I had reason to hope that the costs would not be too great both in human terms and in actual money, and the possible payoff could be huge.


The alternative it seemed, was to continue to just use military responses to Terrorism, in a sort of whack a mole type game, that would never really challenge the real causes, or hinder the real mechanism of Terrorism.


That was my thinking, prior to the invasion. Any discussion of the actual RESULTS of the war, is a different discussion. My thinking prior to the invasion was made WITHOUT knowledge of the results of the war.


I look forward to your reply, to see if you can respond, in a serious manner.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Because you Correll very recently opined this:

Joe Biden was in Congress and supported the overall policy of hostility with Iraq, he deserves a nice share.

The pre-war overall policy was not framed as hostility with Iraq. I was awake at the time and I heard W express his desire for a peaceful resolution of the WMD issue.

Here an excerpt starting in September 2002 When W rejected the Cheney ‘**** the UN’ policy since nation building will be easy and W embraced the Biden policy of ‘we need the UN full support because nation building will be hard and long:

*** Reporter: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

Bush: If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, "We support the administration's ability to keep the peace." That's what this is all about.

Biden and Cheney were miles apart.

Define what you mean by “ overall policy of hostility with Iraq” and because you say Biden and Cheney were promoting the very same overall policy of hostility with Iraq I will ask you the ‘nation builder war of ideas’ supporter once again:

Do you agree with Dick Cheney at the time that it was best and appropriate to go it alone to change the regime in order to disarm Iraq and nation build without full UN support or did you agree with Joe Biden who wanted Bush to wait a few months to get full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence and to have full international support for nation building Iraq into a successful democracy?

Was it BIden policy or Cheney policy as defined that caused you to believe an invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary in March 19 2003?

Why could we not wait a few more months to start nation building as Biden wanted and you’d get a better chance for your nation building to limit casualties and succeed. Or if you believed we would be greeted as liberators as Cheney said and nation building would be easy

Why did you have to start it right in the middle of peaceful inspections when if you believed Cheney that the regime change would be swift and the Nation building would mostly be up to the Liberated Iraqis.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Saddam Hussein certainly gets a good share of credit for all the results of his policies of wars and confrontation with the US.

That is not a fact.

Saddam Hussein did not invade any country in March 2003. His country was invaded in the midst of being peacefully disarmed by the UNSC for three months.

That is a fact.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Preemptive War of aggression:

So which side had the moral weight on the choice they made? The side that chose to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq or the side that chose to fight those that attacked and invaded and occupied Iraq.

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.

….. that needs to be resolved though force.…

What exactly were “the needs” on March 19 2003?

The most powerful nation on earth in a ‘conflict of interest’ bombs invades and occupies a lesser country that had near zero capacity to defend itself from invasion. There is no death and destruction within the borders of the invading nations. The bloodletting, maiming, death and destruction is contained within the borders of the invaded nation.

And you see no moral dilemma involved with that?


If you believed the United States could easily and cheaply invade, remove the regime, occupy and reconstruct a country in the Muslim world you have embraced sheer folly.

If you believed we couid do all that in Iraq and It says nothing about the moral value of the lives on the other side you need not just have your head examined you need to have your soul examined for any connection to spirituality and morality.

 

[Correll]

Because you Correll very recently opined this:



The pre-war overall policy was not framed as hostility with Iraq. I was awake at the time and I heard W express his desire for a peaceful resolution of the WMD issue.

Here an excerpt starting in September 2002 When W rejected the Cheney ‘**** the UN’ policy since nation building will be easy and W embraced the Biden policy of ‘we need the UN full support because nation building will be hard and long:

*** Reporter: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

Bush: If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, "We support the administration's ability to keep the peace." That's what this is all about.

Biden and Cheney were miles apart.

Define what you mean by “ overall policy of hostility with Iraq” and because you say Biden and Cheney were promoting the very same overall policy of hostility with Iraq I will ask you the ‘nation builder war of ideas’ supporter once again:

Do you agree with Dick Cheney at the time that it was best and appropriate to go it alone to change the regime in order to disarm Iraq and nation build without full UN support or did you agree with Joe Biden who wanted Bush to wait a few months to get full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence and to have full international support for nation building Iraq into a successful democracy?

Was it BIden policy or Cheney policy as defined that caused you to believe an invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary in March 19 2003?

Why could we not wait a few more months to start nation building as Biden wanted and you’d get a better chance for your nation building to limit casualties and succeed. Or if you believed we would be greeted as liberators as Cheney said and nation building would be easy

Why did you have to start it right in the middle of peaceful inspections when if you believed Cheney that the regime change would be swift and the Nation building would mostly be up to the Liberated Iraqis.

1. The policy might not have been "framed" as hostility with Iraq. But it obviously was hostility with Iraq. Hostility which was returned from iraq, and had been for quite some time.

2. Biden and Cheney might have had serious disagreements with how to proceed in their hostility with Iraq, but both supported hostility with Iraq. Cheney wanted an invasion, Biden supported Clinton in his policy of regime change though out his administrations.


3. We had waited long enough.

 

[Correll]

That is not a fact.

Saddam Hussein did not invade any country in March 2003. His country was invaded in the midst of being peacefully disarmed by the UNSC for three months.

That is a fact.

Looking at a certain date and discussing the actions of that date out of context, is insanely dishonest. People don't think like that.


And those that supported the invasion, did not believe that Iraq was being "peacefully disarmed".


We believed, at the time that Saddam was successfully hiding his WMDs.


Not, that that was my personal motivation for supporting the war. As I have repeatedly discussed.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Looking at a certain date and discussing the actions of that date out of context, is insanely dishonest. People don't think like that.

That is not a fact or an argument based on such critical things like facts logic and reason.

The historical facts truth and record is clear - from OCTOBER 2002, during the march to war that I would love very much to discuss with you, through March 17 2003, the Biden invasion policy was in effect at the time. The Cheney policy was sidelined.

You for some reason refuse to allow the Biden policy to be part of the discussion as if it never really happened. You have canceled 1441.

You have attempted to assign blame to Biden as one of the architects of an aggressively hostile stance against SH and you deny the truth that the Biden policy matters and you forbid the Biden Iraq policy from being entered into the courtroom of this current debate.

But you are not the presiding officer of this debate.

THEREFORE you must allow the Biden policy to be admitted into evidence because it was the most historically internationally recognized relevant ramp up policy going on from November 2002 all the way up to the last second when W told the 200 inspectors on March 17 they needed to get out of Iraq immediately or their lives would be at risk.

It was SH’s final opportunity to comply.

The Biden policy was center stage with glaring spotlights until March 18’ when the Cheney @**** the UN we will be greeted as liberators policy@ was about to restart and we all had to witness - Blitzkrieg Shock and awe.’

So I ask you again

PRIOR to the invasion did you agree with Dick Cheney at the time that it was best and appropriate to go it alone to change the regime in order to disarm Iraq and nation build without full UN support because we would be greeted as liberators or did you agree with Joe Biden who wanted Bush to wait a few months to get full UN support in order to be certain about the evidence and to have full international support for nation building Iraq into a successful democracy?

Key words from Biden

“in order to be certain about the evidence”


Was your mindset Cheney’s **** the UN “we will be greeted as Christian liberators” the war won’t cost us much or was it Biden’s “we-need the UN because we will be greeted as Christian conquerers and occupiers” so we must anticipate and prepare the American people for a very long and costly war.

I subscribed to the Biden policy prior to the invasion and continue to this day.

Which policy were you subscribed to when you decided to support the decision to invade. If there was another war policy that influenced your decision let’s hear it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

And those that supported the invasion, did not believe that Iraq was being "peacefully disarmed".

Was that a faith based belief or was it based on a rational witnessing of the facts based on objective reality?

Belief in something contrary to observable reality that over ninety percent or more of the world’s global educated and tuned in citizens believe is not healthy. Specifically when the contrary belief is incubated mostly within the borders of the world’s greatest superpower with enough nuclear weapons in its arsenal to blow the world up something like five times over.,

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Was it BIden policy or Cheney policy as defined that caused you to believe an invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary in March 19 2003?

Why can’t you go on the record with an answer to the question?

3. We had waited long enough.

But Because you say you supported the nation building long term scheme as a push against Islamic extremism and I assume you hoped the nation building project would start well and end well, it makes no sense to require the architects to take the necessary responsibility and time to do it right.

You would have required a better plan than being greeted as liberators and **** the UN.

We believed, at the time that Saddam was successfully hiding his WMDs.

It was a belief based on what after 200 UN inspectors after three month found no evidence to support that belief including the leads from the world’s intelligence community that were handed to inspectors to confirm ir deny. They denied every lead that W gave them.

Not a good track record if your belief was based on in basic trust in US and other intelligence claims.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Saddam Hussein did not invade any country in March 2003. His country was invaded in the midst of being peacefully disarmed by the UNSC for three months.

Looking at a certain date and discussing the actions of that date out of context, is insanely dishonest.

How was that fact as presented out of context?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Thus, the inspectors were on a fool's errand that they could NOT be successful at.

That is one of Correll ‘s most foolish ideas.

So I asked:

Would you not have preferred, as Biden suggested prior to the decision to invade, for the inspectors to have been on a fool’s errand instead of the US military being sent on one.

As usual Correll cannot answer questions:

A very, very hypothetical question, as that is not how the policy question was framed at the time, because we did not know what we know now.

Senator Biden did not know what we know now but he knew the nation building was not going to be the piece of cake that Cheney’s propaganda effort was promoting.

My thinking prior to the invasion was made WITHOUT knowledge of the results of the war.

That is why Correll should have listened to Biden instead of Cheney.