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

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
That was a big heaping helping of crazy and anti-Christian bigotry and anti-white racism all mixed together.

Point to the words that you believe are anti- Christians
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
1. Not at all. THere were plenty of valid reasons to oppose the war. Nothing I have ever said implied otherwise.
What about what I mentioned regarding the motivation and attitude that led your war mongering side to dismiss valid reasons such as letting the inspections play out as 6 out of 10 Americans preferred?

For suggesting that I know I was called a SADDAM LOVING anti-American Islamist.

We were not having a legitimate debate prior to the war versus rational intelligent people. and Bush went with them. Now you don’t want to talk about it.

You are Poud that religious Christian warmongers won the Day with your DUBYA and now we are obligated to just shut up about it.


1. "the motivation and altitude"? WTF are you even talking about? We disagreed with your desire to give Saddam more time.

2. You do come across a being quite anti-American. I would actually peg you as a standard lefty atheist, not an islamist.

3. We were having a fairly healthy debate on the issue, certainly better than we would do today, what with Big Tech and Cancel Culture. That it was not conducted according to formal debate rules, by Vulcans, is part of the Human Condition.

4. I am not Proud of winning a debate in the past. My point was that rehashing it, is pointless. I was clear about that. Stop pretending to not get the point so you can talk shit.

5. YOur anti-Christian bigotry is noted.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience.
Saddam did not exhaust the public’s patience. What tells you that he did? A Toby Kieth song.?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
. My point was that rehashing it, is pointless.
That Christian NATION oriented voter base holds the view as you do that former President Obama is an anti-American, anti-Israel, Marxists topped off with anti-white racism. There is no way that voter base would ever hear or consider his legitimate views regarding Iraq when there is a white evangelical patriotic Christian man in the White
House telling them what he wants them to believe.

Do you consider the above by me to be anti-Christian? If so explain why?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
3. Bush did not take Saddam up on his offer, because Saddam had exhausted America's patience.
Saddam did not exhaust the public’s patience. What tells you that he did? A Toby Kieth song.?


Sure he did. You can't just keep fucking around indefinitely, especially when the country you are fucking around with, just lost 3k citizens to a surprise attack.


Do you forget how angry America was?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
Sure he did. You can't just keep fucking around indefinitely, especially when the country you are fucking around with, just lost 3k citizens to a surprise attack.


Do you forget how angry America was?

I have cited for you dozens of polls that indicate a great deal of patience by 60 percent of Americans. That is my source as evidence that most Americans wanted War only with UN support stating they had the patience to let the inspections continue.

My argument is supported by professional polling: Saddam did not exhaust the public’s patience on a 60/40
Split

What is your source for saying the polling is not true or reliable and that most in the country did not want Bush to let the inspectors finish the job?


The push for war never linked SH to the surprize attack in September 2001.
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion.

I was pointing out the point where you joined the discussion:

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.​

Correll said: Could have been an honest mistake.​


Yes you explained that you supported the War in Iraq because you were angry about the al Qaeda attacks that had nothing to do with SH in Iraq.

And you have presented distorted logic for why we must not ever discuss what was being discussed when you joined this thread because you, a cultural Christian true American say it was an honest mistake - move on.
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
Yep. At one point he supported the war, and at a later time he stated his belief that Bush lied to get us into that war.

I mean, wow. People change their opinions over time, especially in the light of new information.
Whatever led you to your false belief that Trump changed his original opinion to support or I believe in his case he did not object to the invasion into Iraq to disarm Iraq of WMD without allowing the inspectors finish the job.

No one can say they supported it going in and then lie afterwards when it goes to shit that they were opposed. Well they can if they are liars and they can get away with lying if their support for invasion was never expressed in the public record..

And you don’t appear to understand the simple concept that if one supported Bush’s threat assessment and justification for starting a “preemptive” war and find out that the President lied to you about its necessity it is more than proper, It Is a moral imperative to lash out a President that lied the country into a 500,000 death and 5 trillion dollar war. That rebuke of a lying War President is not partisanship It is a moral civic duty.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
POINT ONE. Bush's/Trump's base, that you are so.... fixated on, does not equal with The Religious RIght. The RR is a PART of the REpublican Base, not the whole of it, you seem confused on that point
Of course the religious right is only a part of the entire Trump base. I have not made a claim that it is in any way There v whole Trump base. Why did you make a point of it to say that I did?

Do you have a point that would counter what I wrote besides falsely accusing me of being anti-Christian and making a false claim about what I said.

try again will you?
“I’m not confused at all. I understand full well that America’s white evangelical Christian nationalists back in March 2003 were not concerning themselves in the slightest way with whether or not Bush was telling the truth or lying, or any shady crap in between, about Saddam Hussein hiding WMD from UN inspectors.”​

From reading your comments regarding Bush, Iraq and WMD I believe this was your position at the time;
.......back in March 2003 You did not concerning yourself with whether or not Bush was telling the truth or lying, about Saddam Hussein hiding WMD from UN inspectors.”............. Is that true?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
That was a big heaping helping of crazy and anti-Christian bigotry

Is it Anti/Christian to criticize ‘The Land Letter’s authors and all of their Christian readers who took the message as gospel and never used the minds that God gave them to scrutinize the secular reality that was taking place between the Letter and the Shock and AWE seen in the sky over Baghdad.

The LAND LETTER was an open letter sent to U.S. President George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002, outlining their support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq to remove the government, army and police from power.

In that Christian letter it contained something that was not known to be the truth or verified by US intelligence at the time. This Therefore was a lie.

It reads in part: Saddam Hussein ....”harbored terrorists from the al-Qaeda terrorist network that attacked our nation so viciously and violently on September 11, 2001,”

Are those of us that paid attention to Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with UN inspections and Bush’s vow to exhaust all peaceful means to avoid was banned from criticizing Land Letter Christians because doing so is anti Christian?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that.
And if I understand you correctly that is what convinced you in or around November 2002 to support the proposed ground invasion, occupation and nation building in Iraq. Is that right?

4. The transition to democracy was a lot harder than we had reason to expect AND the Iraqis needed a lot more help defending it, then we had reason to hope.

There were some out there at the time that knew that the transition to democracy was going to be a lot harder than many of Iraq invasion supporters thought.

Can’t they read?

March to folly - The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq Introduction by William D. Nordhaus, Yale University October 29, 2002​

The first concern is that the Bush administration has made no serious public estimate of the costs of the coming war. The populace and the Congress are unable to make informed judgments about the realistic costs and benefits of the upcoming conflict when none is given. Particularly worrisome is the promise of post-war occupation, reconstruction, and nation building in Iraq. If American taxpayers decline to pay the bills, this would leave a mountain of rubble and mobs of angry people in Iraq and the region.​

Closely related is a second syndrome, frequently found in past conflicts, of entering war prepared militarily but not economically. The finances of the nation have deteriorated sharply since George W. Bush took office. The annual federal budget has deteriorated by $360 billion in 11⁄2 years, and, even with a short war, budget deficits are likely to mount in coming years. The Bush administration has not prepared the public for the cost or the financing of what might prove an expensive adventure. Perhaps, the administration is fearful that a candid discussion of wartime economics will give ammunition to skeptics of the war; perhaps, it frets that acknowledging the costs will endanger the large future tax cuts, which are the centerpiece of its domestic policy. Nonetheless, the price must be paid – by raising taxes, by cutting expenditures, or by forcing the​
Federal Reserve do the job by raising interest rates, thereby curbing investment and especially housing. One way or another, Americans will pay for the war.​

March to folly - The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq​

Introduction by William D. Nordhaus, Yale University October 29, 2002​

Third, the predisposition of the United States under the Bush administration to undertake unilateral actions poses major risks. From a military point of view, attaching without a broad coalition of countries can make the conduct of the war more difficult and costly, and it may raise the hopes of the Iraqi leadership that others will come to their aid, thereby extending the conflict. From a political point of view, unilateral actions, particularly those taken without support from the Islamic world, risk inflaming moderates, emboldening radicals, and spawning terrorists in those countries. From a legal point of view, America’s insistence on the right to overturn foreign governments without the sanction of international law will undermine a wide variety of cooperative efforts on international finance, disarmament, the environment, non-proliferation, and anti-terrorism. From an economic point of view, unilateral actions imply that the costs will be largely borne by the United States.​

March to folly - The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq Introduction by William D. Nordhaus, Yale University October 29, 2002​

Fourth, strategists may be deluding themselves on the reaction of the Islamic world and the Iraqi people to American intervention. A key uncertainty concerns the loyalty of Iraqi troops and the willingness of the Iraqi military commanders to undertake an urban defense of Baghdad.​

Furthermore, even though no major Arab government is solidly behind the United States, the administration appears to be persuaded that Muslims are just waiting for the overthrow of Saddam to dance in the streets and that Americans will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators rather than infidels.​

Major blunders could unfold if both tactics prove more formidable and admiration for America less widespread than the American administration believes.​

Finally, one senses an obsession bordering on wooden-headedness in the Bush administration’s focus on Iraq in general and on regime change in particular. In contrast to the clear danger from terrorist activities, there is no imminent threat from Iraq. The war in Iraq threatens to claim the scarce resources and attention of the United States for many years, distracting the country from other troubling spots, like North Korea or the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The administration concentrates on Iraq, while slow growth, fiscal deficits, a crisis of corporate governance, and growing health-care problems threaten the economy at home. The domestic economy and the rest of the world will take a back seat as the U.S. deals with war and peace in Iraq.​



Notwithstanding all the warning signs, the administration marches ahead, heedless of the fiscal realities and undeterred by cautions from friends, allies, and foes. Soon, the United States will cry havoc and roll the dice of war.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
Sure he did. You can't just keep fucking around indefinitely, especially when the country you are fucking around with, just lost 3k citizens to a surprise attack.


Do you forget how angry America was?

I have cited for you dozens of polls that indicate a great deal of patience by 60 percent of Americans. That is my source as evidence that most Americans wanted War only with UN support stating they had the patience to let the inspections continue.

My argument is supported by professional polling: Saddam did not exhaust the public’s patience on a 60/40
Split

What is your source for saying the polling is not true or reliable and that most in the country did not want Bush to let the inspectors finish the job?


The push for war never linked SH to the surprize attack in September 2001.



You did cite polls. And I pointed out that polling is not how we run this country. So, why do you keep circling back to it?

Oh, right, you've really got nothing to support your pretend outrage over a debate that ended nearly twenty years ago.


The real crux of this is your desire to inflate the disagreement between Trump and Bush into some type of.... issue for the republican base. .


Which is just a reflection of your ideological rigidity.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,949
Reaction score
6,579
Points
893
1. Not at all. THere were plenty of valid reasons to oppose the war. Nothing I have ever said implied otherwise.
What about what I mentioned regarding the motivation and attitude that led your war mongering side to dismiss valid reasons such as letting the inspections play out as 6 out of 10 Americans preferred?

For suggesting that I know I was called a SADDAM LOVING anti-American Islamist.

We were not having a legitimate debate prior to the war versus rational intelligent people. and Bush went with them. Now you don’t want to talk about it.

You are Poud that religious Christian warmongers won the Day with your DUBYA and now we are obligated to just shut up about it.


1. "the motivation and altitude"? WTF are you even talking about? We disagreed with your desire to give Saddam more time.

2. You do come across a being quite anti-American. I would actually peg you as a standard lefty atheist, not an islamist.

3. We were having a fairly healthy debate on the issue, certainly better than we would do today, what with Big Tech and Cancel Culture. That it was not conducted according to formal debate rules, by Vulcans, is part of the Human Condition.

4. I am not Proud of winning a debate in the past. My point was that rehashing it, is pointless. I was clear about that. Stop pretending to not get the point so you can talk shit.

5. YOur anti-Christian bigotry is noted.

It was grossly unAmerican to support Bibi's desire to overthrow Saddam based on the most assinine lies.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,070
Reaction score
18,186
Points
2,220
I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion.

I was pointing out the point where you joined the discussion:

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.​

Correll said: Could have been an honest mistake.​


Yes you explained that you supported the War in Iraq because you were angry about the al Qaeda attacks that had nothing to do with SH in Iraq.

And you have presented distorted logic for why we must not ever discuss what was being discussed when you joined this thread because you, a cultural Christian true American say it was an honest mistake - move on.


1. YOur opinion that Bush lied is irrelevant at this late date.

2. And it could have been an honest mistake.

3. Al Qaeda attacks are NOT the reason I supported the invasion.

4. My being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with my logic, or my support of the invasion. .You are just being a religious bigot.

5. This is all about your desire to use this to somehow spin up some negative shit to smear current day Trump supporters.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,949
Reaction score
6,579
Points
893
I supported, for reasons previous explained, the policy of invasion.

I was pointing out the point where you joined the discussion:

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.​

Correll said: Could have been an honest mistake.​


Yes you explained that you supported the War in Iraq because you were angry about the al Qaeda attacks that had nothing to do with SH in Iraq.

And you have presented distorted logic for why we must not ever discuss what was being discussed when you joined this thread because you, a cultural Christian true American say it was an honest mistake - move on.


1. YOur opinion that Bush lied is irrelevant at this late date.

2. And it could have been an honest mistake.

3. Al Qaeda attacks are NOT the reason I supported the invasion.

4. My being a cultural Christian has nothing to do with my logic, or my support of the invasion. .You are just being a religious bigot.

5. This is all about your desire to use this to somehow spin up some negative shit to smear current day Trump supporters.

I resigned the Republican party after 35 years because of Bush's stupidity. Didn't you KNOW this invasion was going to be an unmitigated disaster? Americans in the ME, oilmen, Arabs, Diplomats, Historians KNEW it was a huge, huge foreign policy blunder. Hasn't got a damned thing to do with Christianity or religion.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
1. We were wrong about the wmds. GOT IT.
But of course you were never wrong personally and you of course continue to be absolutely right about WMD. You were right prior to the AUMF vote in October 2002 that was tied to disarming Iraq peacefully and patiently of WMD If possible.

You were right about WMD when the UNSC including the United States of America voted on an international stage that tied GW Bush to disarming Iraq peacefully and patiently If possible.

You were right in December 2002 when General al Saadi told reporters at the UN that Saadam Hussein was committed to disarming Iraq peacefully and patiently by offering to allow the CIA agents to enter IRAQ to join the search for WMD alive and in person because IRAQ did not have any.

You were right in JANUARY 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell on ABC This Week showed a high level of America’s patience when he stated affirmatively that Saadam Hussein was disarming Iraq peacefully by cooperating with UN inspectors. When asked by Stephanopolis if war in Iraq was inevitable, Sec Powell answered that war was not inevitable as long as the current level of cooperation continued. Fact. It really happened.

You were right in February 2003 when Dr. Hans Blix reported that Saadam Hussein was committed with his proactive cooperation on process and substance with the 1441 inspectors and that disarming Iraq peacefully would take about 90 more days after March 17 2003. The American people expressed they had patience for that.

You were right because all that peaceful disarmament Bullshit was just a charade wasn’t it to give Bush and Blair to amass 250,000 ground troops and their wheels on the borders of Iraq.

Being the genius that you are you figured out what the entire world and 6 of 10 Americans could not figure out. WMD didn’t matter at all.

2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.


I’ll bet you t thought it was hilarious when Dubya showed a slide show of himself in the Oval office, leaning to look under a piece of furniture. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere”Another slide showed him peering into another part of the office, "Nope, no weapons over there," he said, laughing. "Maybe under here," he said, as a third slide was shown.

How many soldiers were dead at that point after going into Iraq to hunt down the most lethal weapons ever devised under Dubya’s command.

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.

My Thanks to you for this:
I resigned the Republican party after 35 years because of Bush's stupidity

Too bad others in your your former camp didn’t do the same. We likely would not be having our heritage threatened by the Trump insurrection with all his supporters believing his BIG LIE.

They were trained in believing BIG LIES by Big DICK and Lil Dubby and have Republicans perfected it under the Donald. Its still the same four out of ten Americans seemingly that fall for white patriarchal and authoritative father figures who will tell them anything to make them angry but daddy will keep them safe in that Republican bubble they live in.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
1,953
Points
245
You were vague.
Never facts - always format with you.
Where’s the facts?


A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit. It is strange with the benefit of hindsight that what he was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required.


An odd choice for him. Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit.


Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.

When and his did Saddam “poke the bear” after 1441.

You have no facts:

I have facts :


Image www.foxnews.com › story › sa...
Saddam Ever xtends Invite to CIA | Fox News

Dec 22, 2002 — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to ... of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts


Saddam had plenty of time. He choose to spend it fucking around.

I have facts and gave them to you a while



Image www.foxnews.com › story › sa...
Saddam Ever xtends Invite to CIA | Fox News

Dec 22, 2002 — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to ... of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts ...

You have no “Poking the Bear” facts. You out have what Bush told you. It was all lies.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top