Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375

NFBW wrote: It was not a valid reason for starting a war in Iraq in March 2003. POST#3396

NFBW wrote: Again you did not answer the question you were asked. POST#3396

NFBW asks second time: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372 POST#3396

I addressed that. Be less dishonest.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote; Is this Correll in your opinion - an argument in general for starting a war? POST#3373

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” POST#3373 (Ledeen Jonah Goldberg Machiavelli)

Correll wrote: No. I disagree with that comment and the world view that it has as a premise. POST#3377

NFBW wrote: Why do you disagree? POST#3398

NFBW wrote: It was Jonah Greenberg’s April 2002 dissertation on the neocon argument for starting a war in the crappy little country Iraq to begin the strategic projects of nation building in the strategic Guif Region. POST#3398

NFBW wrote: Here is an excerpt from GOLDBERG’s Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two By JONAH GOLDBERG
April 23, 2002 / NATIONAL REVIEW POST#3398

“”” The most compelling substantive reason, from my point of view, is that Iraq should be a democratic, republican country, with individual rights secured by a liberal constitution.

Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two | National Review

For part one, click here. During the Cold War, few people said, “We have to solve the problem of Latvia, before we can even begin to address the problem of the Soviet Union.” Latvia’s problem — as…

www.nationalreview.com

(My preferred governmental model is something along the lines of the Swiss confederation, with Kurds, Shiites, and Arab-Sunnis each having considerable internal autonomy but a shared national government. The country is already split in three parts by the U.S.- and British-imposed no-fly zones anyway. “”” POST#3398

You made no point. Why did you post this? Why did you ask about it? WTF are you on about?

 

[basquebromance]

i concede that Saddam pretended to have WMD's in order to bluff in front of the Iranians that he is a powerful leader not to be messed with

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375

Correll wrote: I addressed that. POST#3401

NFBW wrote: Again you did not answer the question you were asked. POST#3396

NFBW asks a third time: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POSTS #3372 POST#3396 POST#4402

NFBW wrote: Perhaps this will bring Correll to finally answer the POST#3372 question. POST#4402

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. And they won. POST#741

NFBW wrote: In Correll ‘s fake reality regarding the ramp up to the ultimate decision in March 2003 by W to invade invade iIraq, it begins with the outright disinformation operation that there was a national debate in 2002 on whether to take down the dictatorship in Iraq by military force in order to do ‘nation building’ in a Muslim Nation which would ultimately lead to peace and security to the world by diminishing Muslim antagonistic behavior toward the Western style democracies. POST#4402

The problem for Correll is that no such debate on Iraq took place so the supporters of “nation building” war in Iraq did not push that reason for war beyond talking about. And that talk I believe never went beyond the being a neocon wet dream for invading Iraq. POST#4402

NFBW wrote: There was no such debate so Correll cannot answer this question or attempt to address it. POST#4402

NFBW wrote: “How can nation building be a valid argument for war in Iraq l if the US Government never said ever considered starting a war to do it for that reason? POST#4402

 

[Correll]

@Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375

@Correll wrote: I addressed that. POST#3401

NFBW wrote: Again you did not answer the question you were asked. POST#3396

NFBW asks a third time: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POSTS #3372 POST#3396 POST#4402

NFBW wrote: Perhaps this will bring @Correll to finally answer the POST#3372 question. POST#4402

I stopped reading here. You are really doubling down on the dishonest spam botting.


My answer is right in there. You are being very rude in lying to my face like this.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

I stopped reading here. This was answered. You want to move the discussion forward, reply to my answer, don't repost this shit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I stopped reading here. This was answered.

You answer never addressed how you think nation building can be a valid argument for war when it is a fact that nobody in the US government would ever consider starting a war by invading Iraq to do it?

Nation building is an argunent for what to potentially do after winning or ending a war or deposing a government. NB is not an argument or case for starting a war.

When you can accept that reality let me know.

 

[Correll]

You answer never addressed how you think nation building can be a valid argument for war when it is a fact that nobody in the US government would ever consider starting a war by invading Iraq to do it?
.....

Stopped reading here. This was answered.

Why are you being such a troll?

You want to continue this discussion, move it forward. Spamming the same already addressed point, over and over again, is something that bots do. Literally.


Are you a brainless bot, or are you a real person?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Stopped reading here. This was answered.

It is plain to see that when you refuse to answer a specific question by pissing and moaning all over the place it must be a question that undermines your propaganda and disinformation campaign in defense of warmongering the disaster that the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was. The decision that caused at least half a million Iraqis to die in case you forgot.

 

[JoeMoma]

War in Iraq was going to happen after George W. Bush was selected by the USSC, so it was not surprising...

Any Republican that is as old as me or older claims they didn’t support the invasion are lying and knowingly lying.

America made the grave mistake of removing Saddam because it left a power vacuum that allowed Iran to fill which has been far more dangerous and allowed China and Russia to gain better influence within Iraq.

I never accepted the mistake and the fact is America had no business invading!

I don't think it would of happened without 9/11. After 9/11 The USA was looking for a fight.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don't think it would of happened without 9/11. After 9/11 The USA was looking for a fight.

Yes. 9/11 gave the Neocons a foundation to do what they were hankering to do for over a decade. As there was mass appeal to the white evangelical Christian nationalistic Republican base to hit Muslims hard anywhere after 9/11 as if Afghanistan was not enough for some odd reason.

 

[Correll]

It is plain to see that when you refuse to answer a specific question by pissing and moaning all over the place it must be a question that undermines your propaganda and disinformation campaign in defense of warmongering the disaster that the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was. The decision that caused at least half a million Iraqis to die in case you forgot.

Not only did I answer the point about "was it a valid reason", but,


everytime you say, "half a million iraqis" you are being a dishonest anti-American troll.


Is this your way of saying you want to end the debate?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: This was answered. POST#3408

NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414

NFBW wrote: Where exactly dId you provide an answer to “nobody will start a war to do nation building” in your POST#3375 non-answer to the question? POST#3414

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375

NFBW POST#3414 Here is the original full question:

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

NFBW wrote: Your answer that “it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat” does not make it an argument for war if nobody accepts it as a valid argument for war. POST#3414

NFBW wrote: Some arguments were made to just hit a crappy Muslim country every ten years to show America can put a boot up any one’s ass when we feel like it. Thats not a valid argument for war because no AMERICAN policy maker would endorse that. POST#3414

NFBW wrote: That goes with the racist notion that Muslims only respect power. So the answer you went with that nation building “could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat” would apply to a boot up the ass of a crappy Muslim country every ten years would provide security in the same way.. POST#3414

NFBW wrote: But it will never happen because it is not a valid excuse to start a war just like nation building was not an excuse to invade Iraq. POST#3414

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: This was answered. POST#3408

NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414
....

Yes, it did. I made a clear response making a point, and even gave an additional counter point, backed by an historical example.

I'm not going to let you talk shit about this. If you want to advance the discussion, drop this revision shit and make your new point.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, it did.

NFBW wrote: You are a liar. Your answer is on the record. POST#3415

NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414

NFBW POST#3415 wrote: Proof you are a liar:

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375

NFBW asks a third time: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372 POST#3396 POST#3415

NFBW wrote: Your answer was that nation building was a valid argument for war but you cannot explain how that can be so since no government officials or politicians chose to use it as an argument for war. Nation building is an argument for what could be done after a war. POST#3415

NFBW wrote: There had to be an argument settled upon to make war. And in the case of Iraq the COMMANDER IN CHIEF at the time decided the reason was to disarm Iraq through violence and killing and the destructive nature of war. Its just the truth. Because you don’t like the truth does not mean it is not the truth. POST#3415

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: Bush went a little overboard trying to gin up support for the war. POST#137

Bush went a little overboard trying to gin up support for the war.

NFBW wrote: So, Correll what was the argument for war that W was a “little” overboard about? POST#3416

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: You are a liar. Your answer is on the record. POST#3415

NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414
......

Stopped reading here. Why are you posting such lies?


Do you realize that your need to lie so much, is your brain dealing with the fact that you have lost the arugument?

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: Bush went a little overboard trying to gin up support for the war. POST#137



NFBW wrote: So, Correll what was the argument for war that W was a “little” overboard about? POST#3416

Who the fuck cares at this point? We covered it ad nauseum. Why are you bringing it back up at this point?

DO you have anything new to say? Or are you just being an anti-American, anti-white, anti-Christian spam bot?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why are you posting such lies?

Show why you think this is a lie.

NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414

This was your answer:

Correll wrote: Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.
That is a very valid reason for war. POST#3375

Where did you explain why when nobody started a war to do nation building Iraq you think starting a war to do nation building was a valid argument for invading Iraq.

 

[Correll]

Show why you think this is a lie.

NFBW wrote: No. Your answer contained no reference to the “nobody will start a war to do nation building” part of the question you were asked. POST#3414

Because I clearly and completely addressed that point.


Why are you being such a dishonest spam bot? Seriously, what the fuck are you doing?


Is just spamming like a bot, all you have left? Is that really what you want to do here, rather than actually face the Truth like a Man?


This is a test of your Moral Courage and you are failing miserably.