Did you Support War in Iraq??

Did you support the War in Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 32.5%
  • No

    Votes: 56 67.5%

  • Total voters
    83
If the polls showed the opposite, would it change your opinion on the war, the decisions made, or Bush himself?

If the polls showed the opposite I could not be here telling you that you are lying when you keep saying that Americans were out of patience and opposed to giving the UN inspectors more time to verify Iraq’s disarmament peacefully with no need for war as Bush said he would do. Exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to war.

Thats it. Thats all the professional serious polling in the run up to the war means to me. If they were flipped I would honestly say based on the facts that you were correct to say that the majority of Americans wanted Bush to stop the inspections so he can start a preemptive war against Iraq while Saddam was cooperating proactively with the inspectors.

So its time you admit that the polls are not flipped and admit that the majority of Americans were not so angry that they wanted Bush to kick UN Weapons inspectors out of Iraq and initiate the Bush Doctrine in Iraq.

Can you do that??


So, the polls don't mean much to you. THey mean even less to me.


Ask me why?
 
So, the polls don't mean much to you.
You are a liar. They mean enough to you to ask what I thought if that one in particular was flipped.

Polls professionally done mean what they mean. If you have a credible source that confirms the polls in question are flipped please provide. Otherwise you are lying when you say that the majority of Americans did not want President George W. Bush to allow the inspections to continue in order to peacefully verify that Iraq was disarmed.
 
That might explain his odd choices, that from here, looked like a man hiding wmds.
Yes, That explains Saddam Hussein's behavior prior to 1441. After 1441 whatever the UNSC reported was the status of WMD inside Iraq. The inspectors found none and by February 2003 the Iraq regime was cooperating proactively with the inspectors to prove they did not have any WMD to hide. 1441 was a significant event in the history of dealing with Iraq's WMD. It was pivotal because the threat of regime change backed up with 250,000 troops closing in on Iraq.
 
So, the polls don't mean much to you.
You are a liar. They mean enough to you to ask what I thought if that one in particular was flipped.

Polls professionally done mean what they mean. If you have a credible source that confirms the polls in question are flipped please provide. Otherwise you are lying when you say that the majority of Americans did not want President George W. Bush to allow the inspections to continue in order to peacefully verify that Iraq was disarmed.


THey mean enough that I asked you a question about it? WOW.

Just WOW.

Hint: That means shit.


My point stands. The polls mean shit to either one of us. Neither one of us would change our position based on any polls.
 
3. I did not have those numbers, but I, of course considered the cost of the war.
What numbers did you have?
What SADDAM needed to do, was send them to where he knew there was weapon development or weapons.
Poking the BEAR!!!TFF for a reply right now!!!! Get back to you later.


1. I had no hard numbers. I just assumed that it would be terribly expensive in money and lives.

2. Your idiocy is dismissed. My point stands. Saddam was fucking around, and wasted all his time.
 
That might explain his odd choices, that from here, looked like a man hiding wmds.
Yes, That explains Saddam Hussein's behavior prior to 1441. After 1441 whatever the UNSC reported was the status of WMD inside Iraq. The inspectors found none and by February 2003 the Iraq regime was cooperating proactively with the inspectors to prove they did not have any WMD to hide. 1441 was a significant event in the history of dealing with Iraq's WMD. It was pivotal because the threat of regime change backed up with 250,000 troops closing in on Iraq.


They needed to provide evidence that the wmds had been destroyed. Anything less was not meeting their obligations.


You can't prove a negative. Unless the inspectors were able to look at EVERY inch of the country, IN REAL TIME, the possibility that the wmds, were just well hidden, would have remained.
 
Unless the inspectors were able to look at EVERY inch of the country, IN REAL TIME, the possibility that the wmds, were just well hidden, would have remained.
That is not what the inspectors said. They said with the proactive cooperation on substance received in February the process of verifying Iraq in compliance with its disarmament obligations would be completed within a few months. Just the facts.
 
The polls mean shit to either one of us. Neither one of us would change our position based on any polls.

Why did you ask if the polls were flipped? The mean something to you because they mean exactly what they mean. Most Americans 60% did not share your angry lust for preemptive war in Cheney and Bush's March to folly when there was no immediate threat whatsoever for starting it on March 17, 2003.
 
You can't prove a negative.
If that were true , there is no way Saddam Hussein could ever have come into compliance with his disarmament obligations and there is no reason Bush should have given him a final opportunity to comply as he did went he sought and the UNSC to pass unanimously Resolution 1441 for a final round of tough inspections with no deadline. Bush basically wrote and supported 1441 until he realized that SH was heading for compliance.
 
Saddam was fucking around, and wasted all his time.

Not after 1441. In December he offered to let the CIA come in. That is not fucking around. He opened his country to the CIA.

Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — 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.
 
Last edited:
I just assumed that it would be terribly expensive in money and lives.

Did you also assume that the six of ten Americans who wanted inspections to continue would support your March to Folly when they found out the stated mission by Bush to find WMD was a lie?
 
Unless the inspectors were able to look at EVERY inch of the country, IN REAL TIME, the possibility that the wmds, were just well hidden, would have remained.
That is not what the inspectors said. They said with the proactive cooperation on substance received in February the process of verifying Iraq in compliance with its disarmament obligations would be completed within a few months. Just the facts.


You can't prove a negative. Saying that they could not find wmds, does not demonstrate that there were no wmds. Not when you had an entire national government that could be hiding them.
 
You can't prove a negative.
If that were true , there is no way Saddam Hussein could ever have come into compliance with his disarmament obligations and there is no reason Bush should have given him a final opportunity to comply as he did went he sought and the UNSC to pass unanimously Resolution 1441 for a final round of tough inspections with no deadline. Bush basically wrote and supported 1441 until he realized that SH was heading for compliance.


Sure there was. Provide teh wmds, or provide the evidence that they were destroyed.
 
Saddam was fucking around, and wasted all his time.

Not after 1441. In December he offered to let the CIA come in. That is not fucking around. He opened his country to the CIA.

Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — 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.


Too little, too late. He needed to provide teh wmds, or evidence he had destroyed them.
 
Too little, too late. He needed to provide the wmds, or evidence he had destroyed them.

Says Who? Why is December too late? The 1441 inspections were just getting started. Why is that "Too Little" There would be no better way than to have our CIA weapons analysts working on the ground in Iraq instead of at the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon speculating on what was there.

He tried immediately:

Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — 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.


.
 
People were confused by the inability to find the wmds. Trucking them back and forth was a possible reason for it.


The UN inspectors were not confused. What people are you talking about? Can you provide factual backup for what you claim so I can check it out?
 
Sure there was. Provide teh wmds, or provide the evidence that they were destroyed.
That is precisely what the Iraqis and the inspectors were doing since late February 2002 with proactive cooperation from the Iraqi side.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top