What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did you Support War in Iraq??

Did you support the War in Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 30.4%
  • No

    Votes: 48 69.6%

  • Total voters
    69

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
Let’s stick with the facts. Nothing more. Thus was a fact. It really Happened.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA​

By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

This is your response: (click on it to see
You are pretending to not understand that people, especially politicians, will SAY one thing, and then DO another.

May I interpret this to mean that you were telling me that Saddam Hussein was telling the President of the United States that CIA agents could come into Iraq to help verify with United Nations inspectors that Iraq no longer was in possession of WMD, however you have special verifiable knowledge that Saddam Hussain did not really mean that?

So sticking with facts on all matters within this discussion, you will verify for me the fact that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no intention to allow CIA agents into Iraq in order to confirm or deny the presence of WMD?

I will wait for your verification before proceeding with further points to be made.


You may not.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220

What I’m doing here he’s trying to squash the tendency Buy those who supported the war to write the invasion of Iraq off as an honest mistake made by the intelligence community with regard to Iraq’s possession of WMD.

To what end?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.
What rulebook are you pulling that from, goofball? Jesus H Christ!

It is called logic. That you lost the debate happened. You whined about the cost of the war as an Appeal to Emotion to distract from your inability to support your point about how the discussion went.


That is also why you cut all that from the post before you replied. Because otherwise, your reply would have looked stupid.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.

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


The Iraq War was a success...


I know you don’t think it was a success, but if you looked at it from a cost to benefit analysis would you say it was worth the cost to make sure that Saddam Hussein did not possess chemical or biological weapons to be handed off to a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda?

Or would it have been better on the cost to benefit basis to allow the 200 weapons inspectors that were in Iraq for 90 days receiving proactive cooperation from Saddam Hussein to have the additional 90 days they requested to complete the process. That too, even looking forward would have made sure that Saddam Hussein could not handover chemical and biological weapons to a terrorist organization? In fact the peaceful process with a verified it faster, when looking ahead to make the choice because the disarming by violence means lead to disruption and chaos within the Iraqi military that if WMD were there containment and control would have collapsed.

Disarming by peaceful means no lives very little of the US taxpayer dollars to discover the exact same thing. Saddam Hussain in March 2003 did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Of course I was wrong about zero casualties by the peaceful method because there was one.

A UNMOVIC Inspector was killed in a car crash doing what he hoped would avert war. It was a traffic accident. George Bush spit on his grave when he kicked his fellow dedicated inspectors out.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
Let’s go through Correll ’s entrance to this thread - focusing on what is fact and what is fiction.

This discussion was going on. Its a quote from Joe BIden:

“In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he may use them or share them with terrorists,”

In response to struth I wrote:

I agree with that 1000 percent. What is wrong with Biden saying that ever. Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March to start a war. That is not Bush being concerned. That was Bush lying to make his concerns into making a case for war.

The lie I was referring in the above was specific . “Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March (2003) to start a war.” I was not referring to any intelligence gathering prior to the UN inspectors’ return to Iraq in December 2002. This is where Correll joined the discussion.

Could have been an honest mistake.

To be clear I asked “by whom?” and then I cited the specific lie and asked a few questions addressing @Correll’s “honest mistake” defense for Bush and his war supporters.

By whom?

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

That supposed intelligence is the basis for Bush’s lie because the Baathist regime in Iraq was not hiding “The most lethal weapons ever devised from Inspectors under 1441. They were not hiding anything.

What nation’s intelligence besides our own was Dubya acting upon?

Why didn’t Dubya share this Intel with the inspectors as required under 1441.

Why didn’t Dubya send the intelligence gatherers into Iraq to verify the locations of “the most lethal weapons ever devised” as they were invited in by Saddam Hussein himself in December 2002?

The answer came back with the everybody is wrong so nobody is wrong so let’s just forget about about it and move on.

By everyone involved.
I don’t accept the current whitewash attempts by the 4 out of 10 who got their war - made up It had to be just about all Republicans in 2003.

And they didn’t change when Trump ‘ birthered’ his way into their hearts and minds and told them straight from the start that Bush deliberately lied them into a stupid mistake of a war.

From the OP this was the breakdown in 2015 during the campaign.
“Going to war with Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 59 - 32 percent. Republicans support the 2003 decision 62 - 28 percent, while opposition is 78 - 16 percent among Democrats and 65 - 26 percent among independent voters.”​
What’s interesting to me is that 60% number matches exactly the number in polls prior to the invasion that wanted Bush to let the inspectors continue.

The inspection’s meant nothing to the war supporters in 2003 and they mean absolutely nothing to Correll today.

Correll believes in a series of Iraq common myths and has a total lack of comprehension of what disarming Iraq peacefully means when the fact turned out to be there were no WMD to be found by the invading army.

Another interesting thing I’m not seeing much anymore on one of the earliest WMD myths. The one that goes like ‘Saddam had them but they were hauled in Russian trucks and buried in the desert somewhere in SYRIA or are out on a ship circling on the ocean.’

whatever myths Correll believes they will be debunked here.
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.

Regime change was NEVER argued or proposed to be a justification to start the war against Iraq.

The word “if” never had bigger significance.

Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change.​

Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. BUSH MARCH 6 2003.​

Q Mr. President, good evening. If you order war, can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, dead or alive?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
Office of the Press Secretary March 6, 2003

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change. And replacing this cancer inside of Iraq will be a government that represents the rights of all the people, a government which represents the voices of the Shia and Sunni and the Kurds.



Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
Office of the Press Secretary March 6, 2003

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there's risks in any military operation; I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.

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


That was the point we were discussing. YOu went to an emotional appeal because you could not defend your position logically.


We HAD a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Rehashing some of the minute points now, out of context, asking me, twenty years after the fact to answer questions that were answered to the satisfaction of the nation by other people THEN, is moot.


Discussing history is valid. Reenacting debates, and pretending that you are making a point because I am not as versed as the leaders of the time were at the time, is not.

Neither is appealing to emotion when you get called on it.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
Let’s go through Correll ’s entrance to this thread - focusing on what is fact and what is fiction.

This discussion was going on. Its a quote from Joe BIden:

“In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he may use them or share them with terrorists,”

In response to struth I wrote:

I agree with that 1000 percent. What is wrong with Biden saying that ever. Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March to start a war. That is not Bush being concerned. That was Bush lying to make his concerns into making a case for war.

The lie I was referring in the above was specific . “Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March (2003) to start a war.” I was not referring to any intelligence gathering prior to the UN inspectors’ return to Iraq in December 2002. This is where Correll joined the discussion.

Could have been an honest mistake.

To be clear I asked “by whom?” and then I cited the specific lie and asked a few questions addressing @Correll’s “honest mistake” defense for Bush and his war supporters.

By whom?

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

That supposed intelligence is the basis for Bush’s lie because the Baathist regime in Iraq was not hiding “The most lethal weapons ever devised from Inspectors under 1441. They were not hiding anything.

What nation’s intelligence besides our own was Dubya acting upon?

Why didn’t Dubya share this Intel with the inspectors as required under 1441.

Why didn’t Dubya send the intelligence gatherers into Iraq to verify the locations of “the most lethal weapons ever devised” as they were invited in by Saddam Hussein himself in December 2002?

The answer came back with the everybody is wrong so nobody is wrong so let’s just forget about about it and move on.

By everyone involved.
I don’t accept the current whitewash attempts by the 4 out of 10 who got their war - made up It had to be just about all Republicans in 2003.

And they didn’t change when Trump ‘ birthered’ his way into their hearts and minds and told them straight from the start that Bush deliberately lied them into a stupid mistake of a war.

From the OP this was the breakdown in 2015 during the campaign.
“Going to war with Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 59 - 32 percent. Republicans support the 2003 decision 62 - 28 percent, while opposition is 78 - 16 percent among Democrats and 65 - 26 percent among independent voters.”​
What’s interesting to me is that 60% number matches exactly the number in polls prior to the invasion that wanted Bush to let the inspectors continue.

The inspection’s meant nothing to the war supporters in 2003 and they mean absolutely nothing to Correll today.

Correll believes in a series of Iraq common myths and has a total lack of comprehension of what disarming Iraq peacefully means when the fact turned out to be there were no WMD to be found by the invading army.

Another interesting thing I’m not seeing much anymore on one of the earliest WMD myths. The one that goes like ‘Saddam had them but they were hauled in Russian trucks and buried in the desert somewhere in SYRIA or are out on a ship circling on the ocean.’

whatever myths Correll believes they will be debunked here.

I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion.

Trump did, at one point in the campaign state his opinion that bush lied to get us into war.

I disagreed with him on that, but supported Trump based on other issues, such as his policy platform and him not being a democrat.


The problem you have here, is that you personally and liberals in general, have become such rigid partisan ideologues, that ANY disagreement with your agenda is TABOO and thus the person disagreeing must be "cancelled".


That is your side's zealotry. Over here on our side, it is completely possible for Trump and I to disagree on a matter of history, and for me to still support him politically.


Your attempt to show that this normal and healthy behavior is somehow "wrong" is really just showcasing how insane you libs have become.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.

Regime change was NEVER argued or proposed to be a justification to start the war against Iraq.

The word “if” never had bigger significance.

Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change.​
Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. BUSH MARCH 6 2003.​

Q Mr. President, good evening. If you order war, can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, dead or alive?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
Office of the Press Secretary March 6, 2003

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change. And replacing this cancer inside of Iraq will be a government that represents the rights of all the people, a government which represents the voices of the Shia and Sunni and the Kurds.



Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
Office of the Press Secretary March 6, 2003

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there's risks in any military operation; I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.



Wow. You mean that President Bush's stated reasons for the invasion were different from my personal reasons for supporting the invasion?


OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!

That you think this means anything, is just you being hysterical.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,949
Reaction score
6,579
Points
893
Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.

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


That was the point we were discussing. YOu went to an emotional appeal because you could not defend your position logically.


We HAD a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Rehashing some of the minute points now, out of context, asking me, twenty years after the fact to answer questions that were answered to the satisfaction of the nation by other people THEN, is moot.


Discussing history is valid. Reenacting debates, and pretending that you are making a point because I am not as versed as the leaders of the time were at the time, is not.

Neither is appealing to emotion when you get called on it.


Formulated in 1996 for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Clean Break report, prepared by an Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) team headed by former Department of Defense senior official Richard Perle, has become known for its prescient statements regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent military interventions and civil wars in Libya and Syria.

The largely neoconservative study group who put the report together, of both US and Israeli citizenship, include Douglas J. Feith,

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the Bush administration, and Meyrav Wurmser, who helped to found the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Collectively, the group have attended Bilderberg meetings and held roles in the US State Department, as well as membership in a number of think tanks, such as the Hudson Institute, the Trilateral Commission, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

This document is a PDF conversion of a web transcription of the report which can be found below:
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,949
Reaction score
6,579
Points
893
Let’s go through Correll ’s entrance to this thread - focusing on what is fact and what is fiction.

This discussion was going on. Its a quote from Joe BIden:

“In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he may use them or share them with terrorists,”

In response to struth I wrote:

I agree with that 1000 percent. What is wrong with Biden saying that ever. Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March to start a war. That is not Bush being concerned. That was Bush lying to make his concerns into making a case for war.

The lie I was referring in the above was specific . “Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March (2003) to start a war.” I was not referring to any intelligence gathering prior to the UN inspectors’ return to Iraq in December 2002. This is where Correll joined the discussion.

Could have been an honest mistake.

To be clear I asked “by whom?” and then I cited the specific lie and asked a few questions addressing @Correll’s “honest mistake” defense for Bush and his war supporters.

By whom?

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

That supposed intelligence is the basis for Bush’s lie because the Baathist regime in Iraq was not hiding “The most lethal weapons ever devised from Inspectors under 1441. They were not hiding anything.

What nation’s intelligence besides our own was Dubya acting upon?

Why didn’t Dubya share this Intel with the inspectors as required under 1441.

Why didn’t Dubya send the intelligence gatherers into Iraq to verify the locations of “the most lethal weapons ever devised” as they were invited in by Saddam Hussein himself in December 2002?

The answer came back with the everybody is wrong so nobody is wrong so let’s just forget about about it and move on.

By everyone involved.
I don’t accept the current whitewash attempts by the 4 out of 10 who got their war - made up It had to be just about all Republicans in 2003.

And they didn’t change when Trump ‘ birthered’ his way into their hearts and minds and told them straight from the start that Bush deliberately lied them into a stupid mistake of a war.

From the OP this was the breakdown in 2015 during the campaign.
“Going to war with Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 59 - 32 percent. Republicans support the 2003 decision 62 - 28 percent, while opposition is 78 - 16 percent among Democrats and 65 - 26 percent among independent voters.”​
What’s interesting to me is that 60% number matches exactly the number in polls prior to the invasion that wanted Bush to let the inspectors continue.

The inspection’s meant nothing to the war supporters in 2003 and they mean absolutely nothing to Correll today.

Correll believes in a series of Iraq common myths and has a total lack of comprehension of what disarming Iraq peacefully means when the fact turned out to be there were no WMD to be found by the invading army.

Another interesting thing I’m not seeing much anymore on one of the earliest WMD myths. The one that goes like ‘Saddam had them but they were hauled in Russian trucks and buried in the desert somewhere in SYRIA or are out on a ship circling on the ocean.’

whatever myths Correll believes they will be debunked here.

I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion.

Trump did, at one point in the campaign state his opinion that bush lied to get us into war.

I disagreed with him on that, but supported Trump based on other issues, such as his policy platform and him not being a democrat.


The problem you have here, is that you personally and liberals in general, have become such rigid partisan ideologues, that ANY disagreement with your agenda is TABOO and thus the person disagreeing must be "cancelled".


That is your side's zealotry. Over here on our side, it is completely possible for Trump and I to disagree on a matter of history, and for me to still support him politically.


Your attempt to show that this normal and healthy behavior is somehow "wrong" is really just showcasing how insane you libs have become.

Everyone in the ME knew Bush was lying.. Trump actually supported the war on a Howard Stern broadcast.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.

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


That was the point we were discussing. YOu went to an emotional appeal because you could not defend your position logically.


We HAD a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Rehashing some of the minute points now, out of context, asking me, twenty years after the fact to answer questions that were answered to the satisfaction of the nation by other people THEN, is moot.


Discussing history is valid. Reenacting debates, and pretending that you are making a point because I am not as versed as the leaders of the time were at the time, is not.

Neither is appealing to emotion when you get called on it.


Formulated in 1996 for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Clean Break report, prepared by an Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) team headed by former Department of Defense senior official Richard Perle, has become known for its prescient statements regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent military interventions and civil wars in Libya and Syria.

The largely neoconservative study group who put the report together, of both US and Israeli citizenship, include Douglas J. Feith,

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the Bush administration, and Meyrav Wurmser, who helped to found the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Collectively, the group have attended Bilderberg meetings and held roles in the US State Department, as well as membership in a number of think tanks, such as the Hudson Institute, the Trilateral Commission, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

This document is a PDF conversion of a web transcription of the report which can be found below:


The neo cons supported the war. There are supposedly a lot of jews among their number. What is your point? How does that relate to anything in my post that you were responding to?
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,949
Reaction score
6,579
Points
893
Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.

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


That was the point we were discussing. YOu went to an emotional appeal because you could not defend your position logically.


We HAD a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Rehashing some of the minute points now, out of context, asking me, twenty years after the fact to answer questions that were answered to the satisfaction of the nation by other people THEN, is moot.


Discussing history is valid. Reenacting debates, and pretending that you are making a point because I am not as versed as the leaders of the time were at the time, is not.

Neither is appealing to emotion when you get called on it.


Formulated in 1996 for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Clean Break report, prepared by an Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) team headed by former Department of Defense senior official Richard Perle, has become known for its prescient statements regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent military interventions and civil wars in Libya and Syria.

The largely neoconservative study group who put the report together, of both US and Israeli citizenship, include Douglas J. Feith,

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the Bush administration, and Meyrav Wurmser, who helped to found the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Collectively, the group have attended Bilderberg meetings and held roles in the US State Department, as well as membership in a number of think tanks, such as the Hudson Institute, the Trilateral Commission, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

This document is a PDF conversion of a web transcription of the report which can be found below:


The neo cons supported the war. There are supposedly a lot of jews among their number. What is your point? How does that relate to anything in my post that you were responding to?

The invasion of Iraq was to satisfy the Israelis.. Same with the demands to destabilize and isolate Syria. Haven't you ever read Clean Break Strategy?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence
You are a liar.

And I’m beginning to see by the questions you answer and by the questions put forth that you do not answer how they form the pattern in your mind and in your sense of morality on matters of war and peace on a national and religious level. I have begun to understand that you do not personally care about having evidence of a threat to America‘s national security as a prerequisite or requirement before the our commander in chief decides to send American servicemen and women have not into combat - to be killed and to kill at taxpayers expense and in your name or.

Acts of Congress to you personally have little relevance to the strategic or moral right or wrong In starting or instigating a major war as in invading a sovereign nation Lake Iraq without the support of the international community.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and


Does Section 3 (a) (1) of the October 2002 AUMF have any meaningful relevance in a discussion regarding your support of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003?
 
Last edited:

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
6,242
Reaction score
3,720
Points
903
Let’s go through Correll ’s entrance to this thread - focusing on what is fact and what is fiction.

This discussion was going on. Its a quote from Joe BIden:

“In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he may use them or share them with terrorists,”

In response to struth I wrote:

I agree with that 1000 percent. What is wrong with Biden saying that ever. Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March to start a war. That is not Bush being concerned. That was Bush lying to make his concerns into making a case for war.

The lie I was referring in the above was specific . “Bush lied about SH hiding them from inspectors in March (2003) to start a war.” I was not referring to any intelligence gathering prior to the UN inspectors’ return to Iraq in December 2002. This is where Correll joined the discussion.

Could have been an honest mistake.

To be clear I asked “by whom?” and then I cited the specific lie and asked a few questions addressing @Correll’s “honest mistake” defense for Bush and his war supporters.

By whom?

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

That supposed intelligence is the basis for Bush’s lie because the Baathist regime in Iraq was not hiding “The most lethal weapons ever devised from Inspectors under 1441. They were not hiding anything.

What nation’s intelligence besides our own was Dubya acting upon?

Why didn’t Dubya share this Intel with the inspectors as required under 1441.

Why didn’t Dubya send the intelligence gatherers into Iraq to verify the locations of “the most lethal weapons ever devised” as they were invited in by Saddam Hussein himself in December 2002?

The answer came back with the everybody is wrong so nobody is wrong so let’s just forget about about it and move on.

By everyone involved.
I don’t accept the current whitewash attempts by the 4 out of 10 who got their war - made up It had to be just about all Republicans in 2003.

And they didn’t change when Trump ‘ birthered’ his way into their hearts and minds and told them straight from the start that Bush deliberately lied them into a stupid mistake of a war.

From the OP this was the breakdown in 2015 during the campaign.
“Going to war with Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 59 - 32 percent. Republicans support the 2003 decision 62 - 28 percent, while opposition is 78 - 16 percent among Democrats and 65 - 26 percent among independent voters.”​
What’s interesting to me is that 60% number matches exactly the number in polls prior to the invasion that wanted Bush to let the inspectors continue.

The inspection’s meant nothing to the war supporters in 2003 and they mean absolutely nothing to Correll today.

Correll believes in a series of Iraq common myths and has a total lack of comprehension of what disarming Iraq peacefully means when the fact turned out to be there were no WMD to be found by the invading army.

Another interesting thing I’m not seeing much anymore on one of the earliest WMD myths. The one that goes like ‘Saddam had them but they were hauled in Russian trucks and buried in the desert somewhere in SYRIA or are out on a ship circling on the ocean.’

whatever myths Correll believes they will be debunked here.

I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion.

Trump did, at one point in the campaign state his opinion that bush lied to get us into war.

I disagreed with him on that, but supported Trump based on other issues, such as his policy platform and him not being a democrat.


The problem you have here, is that you personally and liberals in general, have become such rigid partisan ideologues, that ANY disagreement with your agenda is TABOO and thus the person disagreeing must be "cancelled".


That is your side's zealotry. Over here on our side, it is completely possible for Trump and I to disagree on a matter of history, and for me to still support him politically.


Your attempt to show that this normal and healthy behavior is somehow "wrong" is really just showcasing how insane you libs have become.

Everyone in the ME knew Bush was lying.. Trump actually supported the war on a Howard Stern broadcast.
haha
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.

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


That was the point we were discussing. YOu went to an emotional appeal because you could not defend your position logically.


We HAD a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Rehashing some of the minute points now, out of context, asking me, twenty years after the fact to answer questions that were answered to the satisfaction of the nation by other people THEN, is moot.


Discussing history is valid. Reenacting debates, and pretending that you are making a point because I am not as versed as the leaders of the time were at the time, is not.

Neither is appealing to emotion when you get called on it.


Formulated in 1996 for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Clean Break report, prepared by an Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) team headed by former Department of Defense senior official Richard Perle, has become known for its prescient statements regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent military interventions and civil wars in Libya and Syria.

The largely neoconservative study group who put the report together, of both US and Israeli citizenship, include Douglas J. Feith,

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the Bush administration, and Meyrav Wurmser, who helped to found the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Collectively, the group have attended Bilderberg meetings and held roles in the US State Department, as well as membership in a number of think tanks, such as the Hudson Institute, the Trilateral Commission, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

This document is a PDF conversion of a web transcription of the report which can be found below:


The neo cons supported the war. There are supposedly a lot of jews among their number. What is your point? How does that relate to anything in my post that you were responding to?

The invasion of Iraq was to satisfy the Israelis.. Same with the demands to destabilize and isolate Syria. Haven't you ever read Clean Break Strategy?


There were lots of different reasons to support the invasion. Different people had different motivations.

There were equally different reasons to oppose the invasion.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence
You are a liar.

And I’m beginning to see by the questions you answer and by the questions put forth that you do not answer how they form the pattern ....


Dude. I stopped reading there. You are just playing stupid troll games.


You've admitted what this is about. YOu are confused about how people that supported Bush then, can support TRump now, even though Trump at one point said that Bush lied.


You are just a pathetic partisan zealot.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,949
Reaction score
6,579
Points
893
Further more, your whining about the cost of the war is irrelevant to any discussion about the national debate leading up to the war.

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


That was the point we were discussing. YOu went to an emotional appeal because you could not defend your position logically.


We HAD a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Rehashing some of the minute points now, out of context, asking me, twenty years after the fact to answer questions that were answered to the satisfaction of the nation by other people THEN, is moot.


Discussing history is valid. Reenacting debates, and pretending that you are making a point because I am not as versed as the leaders of the time were at the time, is not.

Neither is appealing to emotion when you get called on it.


Formulated in 1996 for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Clean Break report, prepared by an Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) team headed by former Department of Defense senior official Richard Perle, has become known for its prescient statements regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent military interventions and civil wars in Libya and Syria.

The largely neoconservative study group who put the report together, of both US and Israeli citizenship, include Douglas J. Feith,

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the Bush administration, and Meyrav Wurmser, who helped to found the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Collectively, the group have attended Bilderberg meetings and held roles in the US State Department, as well as membership in a number of think tanks, such as the Hudson Institute, the Trilateral Commission, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

This document is a PDF conversion of a web transcription of the report which can be found below:


The neo cons supported the war. There are supposedly a lot of jews among their number. What is your point? How does that relate to anything in my post that you were responding to?

The invasion of Iraq was to satisfy the Israelis.. Same with the demands to destabilize and isolate Syria. Haven't you ever read Clean Break Strategy?


There were lots of different reasons to support the invasion. Different people had different motivations.

There were equally different reasons to oppose the invasion.

Have you ever been to Iraq or Iran? Did you ever work in the oil business in the Middle East? You don't seem to know anything at all about the situation or why Bush's invasion was based on lies and was an unmitigated disaster.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,949
Reaction score
6,579
Points
893
You asked me who I considered responsible for reporting accurate intelligence
You are a liar.

And I’m beginning to see by the questions you answer and by the questions put forth that you do not answer how they form the pattern ....


Dude. I stopped reading there. You are just playing stupid troll games.


You've admitted what this is about. YOu are confused about how people that supported Bush then, can support TRump now, even though Trump at one point said that Bush lied.


You are just a pathetic partisan zealot.

Trump supported the invasion of Iraq on the Howard Stern show.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
I stopped reading there.
Truth hurts people who ‘support ’BIG LIES’ whatever those lies may be.

"The 2020 Presidential Election was, by far, the greatest Election Fraud in the history,"​
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”​
"Had Mike Pence had the courage to send the Electoral College vote back to the states for recertification, and had Mitch McConnell fought for us instead of being the weak and pathetic leader he is, we would right now have a Republican President who would be VETOING the horrific Socialistic Bills that are rapidly going through Congress, including Open Borders, High Taxes, Massive Regulations, and so much else!”​
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top