Did you Support War in Iraq??

[watchingfromafar]

The right was for ousting Saddam, not rebuilding stupid fucking Iraq.

Do you know why the FBI puts comments like yours on the FBI watch list-?

 

[Godboy]

The right was for ousting Saddam, not rebuilding stupid fucking Iraq.

Do you know why the FBI puts comments like yours on the FBI watch list-?

No, please enlighten us.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The right was for ousting Saddam, not rebuilding stupid fucking Iraq.

Tell that to “rightwing dingdong Correll..

IF you break it you own it.

But what did you think was gonna happen when DicknW took SH out? If we didn’t stay to nation bu either Iran would be taken over - or a Sunnis and Shiite full blown civil war would have given Sunni extremists linked to al Qaeda a shot at doing what ISIS EVENTUALLY DID.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.

You are saying that you think you have the right of absolute authority (no one is higher than you, no law can restrain you) to wage war against whomever you perceive to be an enemy. a sovereign is not responsible to anybody and is not bound by any laws. A sovereign is very alone.

Your sovereignty does not come with an army that must follow your command so you are indeed alone.

I did not claim to be waging war alone. You were mistaken if you truly believe that I said that.

So why that reply? Do you command an Army and Air Force with your right of sovereignty?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

That was the crux of the debate, whether peaceful means could achieve our goals.

What was the goal of disarming Iraq peacefully.

What was goal?

You are on record supporting this goal are you not?

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.

Why do you never hold Saddam responsible for his choices?

I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument.

Note sure what you mean by "used by". There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case.

And they won

You were very explicit here about your pre-invasion goal:

2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. WMDs are World War ONE technology, and I do not believe that we can restrict access to that level of technology. The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.

Your goal did not include disarming Iraq peacefully because disarming Iraq peacefully denied your stated goal: Regime Change through massive bombardment and ground assault followed by nation building by the US Military unprepared for the role.

To you whether peaceful means could achieve your goal was never an issue to be debated. Never.

 

[surada]

The right was for ousting Saddam, not rebuilding stupid fucking Iraq.

Tell that to “rightwing dingdong Correll..

IF you break it you own it.

But what did you think was gonna happen when DicknW took SH out? If we didn’t stay to nation bu either Iran would be taken over - or a Sunnis and Shiite full blown civil war would have given Sunni extremists linked to al Qaeda a shot at doing what ISIS EVENTUALLY DID.

The Dual Containment Policy worked for 20 years. Everyone in the ME knew that war on Iraq would make Iran ascendant .. But Israel demanded that SH be overthrown since 1996. There was NO benefit to the US or the Middle East.

 

[Correll]

You say "this is how corell expresses", and then post a bunch of shit that I did not say.

Express - convey (a thought or feeling) in words or by gestures and conduct.

Your conduct as a self-proclaimed sovereign citizen of the United States of America sand as a cultural Christian was when you opposed the peaceful disarmament of Iraq through UN inspections and lusted for war sand bloodshed , out of your uncontrolled anger at SH, to g the point v

You are raving. I did not believe that the "peaceful disarmament" was working.


I have repeatedly asked you if you understand that people that disagree with you, don't agree with you.


Here we see that you do NOT understand that.

You are judging me, AS THOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU, that peaceful disarmament was working.



That is you being either insanely close minded or just very dishonest so as to justify being an asshole.

 

[Correll]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

 

[Correll]

did not claim to be waging war alone.

YES YOU DID.

NO, I did not. YOU are raving. If you did not cut my post to nothing, you could see, right there on teh page, that I did not do as you were saying.


Which is WHY you always cut the posts down to nothing.


So that your lies look more plausible, to the lazy or stupid. Which is the only audience that liberals care about today, because it is the only ones you have a chance of winning over.

 

[surada]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

 

[Correll]

Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position.

In America you have the right to voice your opinion.

Mine, on the other hand disagree with yours

George W. Bush really did lie about WMDs, and his aides are still lying for him
Ari Fleischer is a liar. He lies about stuff big and small. And as President George W. Bush’s press secretary during the run-up to the Iraq War, he participated in a large effort to exaggerate and misrepresent what the intelligence community believed about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s (negligible) links to al-Qaeda.

Ari Fleischer is wrong: Bush did lie, and people did die - Vox

Author claims Bush knew Iraq had no WMD
President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, an explosive new book claims.The charge is made in “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism” by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, released today.S
Author claims Bush knew Iraq had no WMD (today.com)

In the early 2000s, the administrations of George W. Bush and Tony Blair asserted that Saddam Hussein's weapons programs were still actively building weapons, and that large stockpiles of WMDs were hidden in Iraq.

Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003, under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Hussein give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked. The United States asserted that Hussein's frequent lack of cooperation was a breach of Resolution 1441, but failed to convince the United Nations Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence. Despite this, Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War instead. A year later, the United States Senate officially released the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq which concluded that many of the Bush Administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were misleading and not supported by the underlying intelligence. United States–led inspections later found that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling; the war was called by many, including 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a "mistake".
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia

Bush knew what he was doing, a military war creates jobs while deflecting his bad statesmanship.

Bush did indeed know what and why he took us into a war
Then again we could ask him, he is still around>
-

Do you understand that that conclusion is vague purposefully SO THAT PARTISAN LIKE YOU CAN READ INTO IT THAT WHICH THEY WANT TO SEE?

 

[Correll]

I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.

You are saying that you think you have the right of absolute authority (no one is higher than you, no law can restrain you) to wage war against whomever you perceive to be an enemy. a sovereign is not responsible to anybody and is not bound by any laws. A sovereign is very alone.

Your sovereignty does not come with an army that must follow your command so you are indeed alone.

I did not claim to be waging war alone. You were mistaken if you truly believe that I said that.

So why that reply? Do you command an Army and Air Force with your right of sovereignty?

Do you see the words, "as part of America"?


Your rabid partisanship is literally blinding you.

And you are being an asshole based on YOUR MISPERCEPTIONS.

 

[Correll]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

That was the crux of the debate, whether peaceful means could achieve our goals.

What was the goal of disarming Iraq peacefully.

What was goal?

You are on record supporting this goal are you not?

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.

Why do you never hold Saddam responsible for his choices?

I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument.

Note sure what you mean by "used by". There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case.

And they won

You were very explicit here about your pre-invasion goal:

2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. WMDs are World War ONE technology, and I do not believe that we can restrict access to that level of technology. The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.

Your goal did not include disarming Iraq peacefully because disarming Iraq peacefully denied your stated goal: Regime Change through massive bombardment and ground assault followed by nation building by the US Military unprepared for the role.

To you whether peaceful means could achieve your goal was never an issue to be debated. Never.

Hint: YOu don't have to spend the time to source my own words. I remember saying those words, and I don't play dishonest games like you libs do.


These were not my "GOALS" but my personal reason for supporting the policy of invasion.

I am discussing the "peaceful process of disarmament" because YOU are obsessed with it.


IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that.


I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Do you see the words, "as part of America"?

I am part of America but I would never think to proclaim to the world that I am sovereign so I can wage war against my perceived enemy when there is no real threat from that perceived enemy because he has 200 UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq and he’s being careful not to even fart Loudly in public.

You said you were special and you had sovereign rights as part of America to wage war against your enemies. Of course I know you’re making it all up. But you did say it. So you are special and you are freaking alone.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.

Yes and that would be compatible with waiting another 90 days to let the inspectors make a final determination because if the inspections went to shit because Saddam Hussein pulled something yeah the army there and ready to go and no one would be questioning W’s decision to invade.

that’s what six out of 10 Americans preferred doing. So we have every damn right to question that ignorant decision not to wait 90 days after the whole situation with the Iraq and been going on for 12 years and finally because of the threat of force around his country Saddam Hussain was doing everything possible to be verified disarmed.

If you were OK with not inviting produce regime change then your whole argument is even more stupid than first expressed on this thread.

 

[Correll]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

[Correll]

Do you see the words, "as part of America"?

I am part of America but I would never think to proclaim to the world that I am sovereign so I can wage war against my perceived enemy when there is no real threat from that perceived enemy because he has 200 UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq and he’s being careful not to even fart Loudly in public.

You said you were special and you had sovereign rights as part of America to wage war against your enemies. Of course I know you’re making it all up. But you did say it. So you are special and you are freaking alone.

You are really reaching here, trying to justify your being so fucking retarded that you can't... read a simple post and actually understand it, AND THEN you are an asshole based shit you made up in your own head.

 

[Correll]

realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too.

Yes and that would be compatible with waiting another 90 days to let the inspectors make a final determination because if the inspections went to shit because Saddam Hussein pulled something yeah the army there and ready to go and no one would be questioning W’s decision to invade.

that’s what six out of 10 Americans preferred doing. So we have every damn right to question that ignorant decision not to wait 90 days after the whole situation with the Iraq and been going on for 12 years and finally because of the threat of force around his country Saddam Hussain was doing everything possible to be verified disarmed.

If you were OK with not inviting produce regime change then your whole argument is even more stupid than first expressed on this thread.

You were happy to keep fucking around with Saddam forever. America was not.

 

[Correll]

Do you see the words, "as part of America"?

I am part of America but I would never think....

Not, it would be reasonable for you to start a thread, even with a poll, something along the lines of "Was the Iraq Invasion good for America?" and discuss the pros and cons of the policy and make your case.


BUT, you are fixated on trying to prove that those on the other side of the issue than you, lied or supported a lie, and thus are bad people.


You cannot or refuse to, understand that people that disagree with you, disagree with you.


You insist on judging people WHO CLEARLY STATE THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT BUSH LIED, as though they believe he lied.


That is you being an asshole.

That is all this thread is. You being an asshole.

 

[surada]

It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.

No. you are lying to yourself. The United Nations Security Council did not rely upon the opinion of American citizens when they unanimously voted for 1441 which included the United States and the United Kingdom. The peaceful process of inspections began when that vote was final. That peaceful process did not cease to be a fact because some dumb ass warmonger sitting in the United States hopped up on something wanting to kill Iraqis and you think it did. Only way to end the peaceful process to disarm Iraq was if Saddam Hussein obstructed inspections to such a point that the United Nations Security Council would vote unanimously to end the process. The two chief weapons inspectors both wanted the inspections to continue because by February 2003 Saddam Hussein was reported to be acting proactively on process and on substance and another few months would complete the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein. That is undeniable fact.

The fact that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was working until it was abruptly interrupted by the George W Bush administration is there was no WMD were to be found as a result of disarmament by war.

The facts are not on your side and that’s why you show no penchant for ever caring about facts.

I did not believe that the peaceful process was working AND I did not find the UN inspectors credible.

I felt that they were committed to the "process" as a way to stop war, and would not admit that it was a failure, because they were afraid of war.


Do you understand that I disagree with you?

What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq?

A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Why don't you butt out and leave them in peace? All Islam is fundamental. Its called the 5 Pillars of Islam.