Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position. YOURS is that somehow, you are sure that that means he was lying.

However, the fact is that you cannot deny that your position that George Bush was sure “leaving no doubt” that Iraq was hiding WMD from 1441 inspectors beyond March 10 2003 is solely based upon your personal partisan political bias and not on knowable facts that are available to us.

My position is based solely in knowable facts that partisans such as you refuse to examine and discuss and refute if that were possible. Your only recourse is to ignore the facts presented to you and to cheapen language by constantly insulting the presenter of fact.

Dude, how many times have you looked an issue and been "Sure" that no one could disagree with your take on it, and yet people on the other side of the political divide still manage to disagree with you?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dude, how many times have you looked an issue and been "Sure" that no one could disagree with your take on it, and yet people on the other side of the political divide still manage to disagree with you?

Look. You did not mention the critical word “fact” in your reply. That is a fact. My “take” is based on knowable facts. Your disagreement is not based on facts that we can know.

I have not argued that “no one could disagree with my take on it”. I believe the absolute opposite. The far left anti-war whackjobs at anti-war.com don’t agree with me on this matter of what exactly Bush lied about.

Bush was not lying about the threat of WMD in Iraq prior to 1441.

You can only know why that is true when you decide to accept ONLY facts and the timeline of the Push fir war and all the components between the summer of 2002 and the start of the invasion in Mid-March 2003.

Every time you divert the discussion by making my argument for me its your continued method of cheapening language and making it clear that facts don’t matter when you do not have them on your side sand they don’t fit your political motivation.

 

[Correll]

Dude, how many times have you looked an issue and been "Sure" that no one could disagree with your take on it, and yet people on the other side of the political divide still manage to disagree with you?

Look. You did not mention the critical word “fact” in your reply. That is a fact. My “take” is based on knowable facts. Your disagreement is not based on facts that we can know.

I have not argued that “no one could disagree with my take on it”. I believe the absolute opposite. The far left anti-war whackjobs at anti-war.com don’t agree with me on this matter of what exactly Bush lied about.

Bush was not lying about the threat of WMD in Iraq prior to 1441.

You can only know why that is true when you decide to accept ONLY facts and the timeline of the Push fir war and all the components between the summer of 2002 and the start of the invasion in Mid-March 2003.

Every time you divert the discussion by making my argument for me its your continued method of cheapening language and making it clear that facts don’t matter when you do not have them on your side sand they don’t fit your political motivation.

Irrelevant.


The point is that this is about you being unable to understand that other people disagree with you.


We do not believe that Bush lied about wmds.


You insist on judging us, and attacking us, as though we DO agree with you, and support him anyways.


That is you being insanely closed minded.


That you are an asshole to people BASED ON THAT, is just the icing on the cake.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We do not believe that Bush lied about wmds.

But like some religious people do you choose your beliefs based on faith that it’s true not on grounding it on the facts.

You still cant use the word “fact” in your replies on the topic of engaging and examining the facts..

Bush was willing to allow SH to remain in power up until March 10 2003. That is a knowable fact by his public actions as POTUS.

If Bush was absolutely positive on March 9 2003 that Iraq possessed and was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from 1441 inspectors he would have never made that offer - to leave that threat to the world and to the USA.

Think about before dodging the facts save the truth once again in your faith based replies.

 

[Correll]

We do not believe that Bush lied about wmds.

But like some religious people do you choose your beliefs based on faith that it’s true not on grounding it on the facts.

You still cant use the word “fact” in your replies on the topic of engaging and examining the facts..

Bush was willing to allow SH to remain in power up until March 10 2003. That is a knowable fact by his public actions as POTUS.

If Bush was absolutely positive on March 9 2003 that Iraq possessed and was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from 1441 inspectors he would have never made that offer - to leave that threat to the world and to the USA.

Think about before dodging the facts save the truth once again in your faith based replies.

Your inability to grasp that other people disagree with you, is a problem with YOU.


Question. By your standards, did Abe Lincoln lie us into war?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You insist on judging us, and attacking us, as though we DO agree with you, and support him anyways.

I don’t think like that in anyway. You don’t agree with me because you don’t agree that knowing and dealing with facts matters in your faith based world.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Question. By your standards, did Abe Lincoln lie us into war?

Do you have any facts for me to consider the are evidence that HONEST ABE lied us into war.

IF You researched it and found evidence that ABE LIED and started a preemptive war against the SOUTH While UN inspectors were in the South searching for hidden slaves or something - sure I’ll consider a brief summary if your facts.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

FACTS Correll !!! Let’s deal with FACTS.

 

[Correll]

You insist on judging us, and attacking us, as though we DO agree with you, and support him anyways.

I don’t think like that in anyway. You don’t agree with me because you don’t agree that knowing and dealing with facts matters in your faith based world.

You insist on judging your enemies AS THOUGH THEY AGREE WITH YOU.


You don't state, that "you supported the war because you made a wrong call on whether or not peaceful disarmament was working".


Instead you state, " you are bloodthirsty because you insist on support the war, even though peaceful disarmament was working".


That is you, being unable to grasp that people disagree with you, and attacking them based on your belief that they THINK the same shit as you but ACT differently to it.


That is something wrong with you.

 

[Correll]

Question. By your standards, did Abe Lincoln lie us into war?

Do you have any facts for me to consider the are evidence that HONEST ABE lied us into war.

IF You researched it and found evidence that ABE LIED and started a preemptive war against the SOUTH While UN inspectors were in the South searching for hidden slaves or something - sure I’ll consider a brief summary if your facts.

He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Instead you state, " you are bloodthirsty because you insist on support the war, even though peaceful disarmament was working".

No. That is not true. You are a bloodthirsty warmonger because you are perpetuating several of the myths and lies that bloodthirsty warmongers perpetuated in March 2003 to justify the bloodthirsty invasion.

Here’s an example. Its your “Poking the Bear after 1441” myth .

My point stands. 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.

Peacefully disarming Iraq had no chance at succeeding to anyone who supported the warmonger myth that SH was not fully and actively cooperating with 1441 inspections prior to the decision to invade.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.

If you consider him to be a moderate because he was opposed to slavery on a moral basis but did not support emancipation because it was justified in the Constitution - well That’s fine.

Can you connect the dots on how that was a lie that Lincoln falsely sold to justify the invasion by the UNITED STATES into the CONFEDERATE STATES after Jeff Davis was given a final opportunity to free the slaves. Then Jeff Davis was half done setting the slaves free - Lincoln decided to invade the South anyway.

So I’m not seeing a lie or any kind of deceptive practice here at all by Honest Abe. The facts don’t support it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.

Why did you say Lincoln “waged a war to free the slaves” .

Lincoln did not get elected because he supported slavery and then flip flop and launch a war into the SOUTH to force them to give up slavery.

What history books are you reading.

This is my understanding if what happened at the start of the war when Lincoln tried to send supplies to American soldiers located in the newly formed Confederate States where the true Americans were surrounded by the traitors.

The Confederacy learned of Lincoln’s plans and demanded that the forts surrender under threat of force. When the U.S. soldiers refused, South Carolinians bombarded Fort Sumter in the center of Charleston harbor. After a 34-hour battle, the soldiers inside the fort surrendered to the Confederates.​

 

[Correll]

Instead you state, " you are bloodthirsty because you insist on support the war, even though peaceful disarmament was working".

No. That is not true. You are a bloodthirsty warmonger because you are perpetuating several of the myths and lies that bloodthirsty warmongers perpetuated in March 2003 to justify the bloodthirsty invasion.

Here’s an example. Its your “Poking the Bear after 1441” myth .

My point stands. 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.

Peacefully disarming Iraq had no chance at succeeding to anyone who supported the warmonger myth that SH was not fully and actively cooperating with 1441 inspections prior to the decision to invade.

I disagree with you.

ALL that time you spend arguing that your position is right, is irrelevant because the point of decision was nearly two decades ago.

EVEN if you convinced me NOW, it would not change my motives THEN.


You feel that you can prove that your enemies are "bloodthirsty" because you are unable to accept that people disagree with you.


That you are certain that you are right about the "facts" of the case, is irrelevant to the fact that I disagree with you.


That you think I am a bad person for not thinking like you, or because you assume bad shit about the way I think, is irrelevant.

 

[Correll]

He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.

If you consider him to be a moderate because he was opposed to slavery on a moral basis but did not support emancipation because it was justified in the Constitution - well That’s fine.

Can you connect the dots on how that was a lie that Lincoln falsely sold to justify the invasion by the UNITED STATES into the CONFEDERATE STATES after Jeff Davis was given a final opportunity to free the slaves. Then Jeff Davis was half done setting the slaves free - Lincoln decided to invade the South anyway.

So I’m not seeing a lie or any kind of deceptive practice here at all by Honest Abe. The facts don’t support it.

Lincoln lied to the American people to get himself elected. He knew that the South would rise up in rebellion. His talk of collecting tariffs and saving "The Union" were just bullshit excuses. The moment he had an excuse, he freed the slaves.


If he wanted to save the union, all he had to do, was NOT run for office.


He lied us into war.


What about Wilson? Do you believe he lied US into war?

 

[Correll]

He ran as a moderate on the slavery issue, while his actions in waging war to free the slaves, proved that to be a lie.

Why did you say Lincoln “waged a war to free the slaves” .

Lincoln did not get elected because he supported slavery and then flip flop and launch a war into the SOUTH to force them to give up slavery.

What history books are you reading.

This is my understanding if what happened at the start of the war when Lincoln tried to send supplies to American soldiers located in the newly formed Confederate States where the true Americans were surrounded by the traitors.

​

The Confederacy learned of Lincoln’s plans and demanded that the forts surrender under threat of force. When the U.S. soldiers refused, South Carolinians bombarded Fort Sumter in the center of Charleston harbor. After a 34-hour battle, the soldiers inside the fort surrendered to the Confederates.​

He ran on being allowing slavery to continue. But the moment he had an excuse, he freed them. He also knew that his election would lead to the south rising up in rebellion.


ONly a bloodthirsty warmonger would have supported Lincoln knowing what an abolitionists he was. That is why he had to lie to the American voters to get elected.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He ran on being allowing slavery to continue. But the moment he had an excuse, he freed them. He also knew that his election would lead to the south rising up in rebellion.

If you have facts to back that up I’d live to see them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If he wanted to save the union, all he had to do, was NOT run for office.

But he ran for office - that is a fact. Do you have any facts that support your claim that Lincoln lied.


Are you saying that Abraham Lincoln is responsible for the south seceding from the union?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He also knew that his election would lead to the south rising up in rebellion.​

stick with facts - he couldn’t know that. He was the nominee of the anti-slavery Republican Party at the time.

In 2024 should Dems not run a candidate because the Confederate traitors of our time will secede from the Union if Trump doesn’t win?


I THOUGHT we lived in a Democratic Republic where voters decide - not slave owners.

In the eleven states that would later declare their secession from the Union and be controlled by Confederate armies, ballots for Lincoln were cast only in Virginia, where he received 1,929 votes (1.15 percent of the total).Abraham Lincoln: Hannibal Hamlin​

en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › 1860_...

1860 United States presidential elec​

 

[Correll]

He ran on being allowing slavery to continue. But the moment he had an excuse, he freed them. He also knew that his election would lead to the south rising up in rebellion.

If you have facts to back that up I’d live to see them.

WE have the historical record of his actions and the actions of the South. He had to know the effect of his being elected on the South, or he would not have lied about his stance on slavery.

By your standards, he lied us into war. Do you support this, thus being a bloodthirsty warmonger?