Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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

Why did you support Nation Building by military invasion knowing that our military was not prepared to nation build when Bush sent them in on March 17
2003?

It is interesting that you pretend to know what I thought in the past.


That is either incredibly arrogant of you, or incredibly dishonest.


Considering that you use such "facts" constantly to insult and smear people, I would go with dishonest.


Oh, and it really needs to be commented on, you are an ass about it. You really pile on the divisive partisan bitterness when you do it.

NOt to mention constantly peppering your posts with partisan filler of the most stupid and divisive kind.

 

[Correll]

My agreement was implied when I made the point that there were other times that we declared war with a nation that did not threaten US.

when and what countries was that?

What an interesting question. I only mentioned that AND gave a major example over and over, several times.


So, are you being dishonest again, or are you revealing that you are not really reading my posts, just grabbing a rando phrase, cutting everything else and then spewing spam talking points?

 

[Correll]

Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.

I am surprised you were not aware the First use of the Blitzkrieg strategy in September 1939 since you must be an admirer of a good white Christian cultural conservative like Mike Pence. who As yuh know Pence just recently survived a lynch mob speckled with American Nazi Trump supporters and white supremacists, and Christian Q-anon cult members because he failed Trump so miserably on January 6 2021.

​

After roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, more than 2,000 airplanes and more than 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939, the British gave Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler an ultimatum: pull out of Poland, or else.​

​

The Invasion of Poland Wasn't Hitler's First Aggression. Here's Why That Move Marked the Beginning of WWII

Roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, 2,000 airplanes and 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939

www.google.com

​

Hitler ignored the demand, and two days later, on Sept. 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war. Thus began World War II, and this weekend Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Poland to mark the anniversary of that event​

Was weak Poland invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was that a military outbreak of fascism that threatened the entire world or not? Was Poland a threat to Germany when the BLITZKIEG was launched by Adolp Hitler

Was weak Iraq invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was Iraq (with 200 UN INSPECTORS On the ground) a threat to its neighbors or to the rest of the world at that time? Was IRAQ a threat to The UNITED STATES of AMERICA when the March 2003 BLITZKIEG was launched by GEORGE W BUSH into Iraq?

The only thing you excel at @Correl cheapening language and farting from your brain.

You made a point. That Iraq was not a threat to our nation when we decided to invade.

My counter point was that nazi german was not a threat to us when we declared war on them.

Your attempt at rebuttal, did not contradict my point at all.


It did contain quite a bit of partisan and racist hate.


My point stands. Your point about Iraq not being a threat to us, is refuted.



A nation being a direct threat to you, is not a requirement for a Just War.


DO you have the integrity and moral courage to admit that point?



lol!!! That was a joke. Of course you do not.

Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone when Bush invaded, but its what Bibi wanted.

Bush had his reasons for invading Iraq. They were many and varied. That you are focused on what Bibi wanted is about you, not Bush, not Bush's or Trump's supporters.

It wasn't about WMDs or oil or democracy or Iraq being a threat to the neighbors. What's left but Bibi's demands?

That bit where you people disagree with someone else's reasons?

Even if you think that you "proved" them wrong?


That does not change the fact that those reasons were those people's reasons.


That you think it does, is literally insane.


I'm serious about that. YOu are confused about how reality works.


AND that you build on top of that madness to then be an antisemetic asshole, is... just the icing on the cake.

 

[Correll]

Mmm, I don't see anything clearly against preemptive war.

There is plenty in your link. See bullets.

Preemptive war can never be a just war if there is a peaceful solution and it is possible and attempts at reaching it are not exhausted.

That is the crux of our disagreement. We disagree whether all possible peaceful solutions were exhausted.

I mean, seriously, all this time and you still can't grasp the idea that we disagree?

What the **** is wrong with you?

• It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.
  
  
• In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success.

You have asserted that the invasion of Iraq was not a response to a threat. WWII was a threat from a superior military expanding its borders.

YOU presented as a "rule" the idea that war could or should only be in response to a immediate threat to our nation. My point was to give an example that disproved your "rule".

Seriously. YOU are the one that was pushing that as a rule, not me. Are you unable to distinguish in your mind between yourself and other people?

What the **** is wrong with you?

• Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack.

SH was not about to attack anybody.

How is that relevant?

• War to punish a guilty enemy.

The was dealing with that under international law and 1441

• War is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:
• It is necessary that the response be commensurate with the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
• Governing authorities declare war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate.

Any violence used in a preemptive war to nation build is not commensurate with the evil of SADDAM HUSSEIN cooperating with inspections. That is a fact.

That is not a fact. That is your opinion. Indeed, it is a statement of layered opinions, built on top of each other.

IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.

Not how I distinguish between what I believe and concrete facts. That is something... sane people try to do.

Six out of ten Americans opposed the invasion without UN Authorization. They know what a just war requires. And they were absolutely right.

The UN is not a world government. That a significant portion of the population has been confused on this issue, is very dangerous, and not relevant to this topic. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT is the governoring authority, not the ******* UN.

 

[Correll]

He is pretending that the Civil War was about Federal Property, when it was about slavery.

You are a liar. The American Civil War was about slavery. The war about slavery was started when the traitor Confederates attacked Federal property and the newly sworn in President responded to the attack accordingly

The facts are as follows.

​

South Carolina became the first state to secede from the federal Union on December 20, 1860. The victory of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election triggered cries for disunion across the slaveholding South. The secession of South Carolina precipitated the outbreak of the American Civil War in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861.​

​

So stop with the fantasy that I am pretending anything other than what I state to be my understanding of history and the critical facts therein.

IN context, it was clear that I was making a point about what LINCOLN was doing, not you.


If your mistake on that was honest, then you are stupid to cut so fast that you confused yourself.


IF it was just you making a pretend mistake so that you could dodge my point, and then attack a strawman, then you are a dishonest asshole.


Either way, my point stands. BY YOUR STANDARDS, Lincoln lied US into war.


You refuse to face that, because addressing it, undermines your goal, of just using this shit to justify partisan attacks on your enemies.

 

[Correll]

Freeing the slaves in the majority of the slave states, meant that slavery was effectively ended in the country.

Lincoln did not advocate freeing the slaves in the slave states until after the first anniversary of the war. He advocated no slavery in new territory an stated which would do no harm to existing slave owners way of life.

Sorry, you cut so much, I don't recall what point I was making. So, forget about it.

 

[Correll]

I like the way that you try to limit the discussion of Lincoln to what he said DURING THE CAMPAIGN, as though the slave owners, were unable to know about his earlier, very strong abolitionists statements and positions.

That shows that you ALREADY KNOW, that Lincoln was a very strong ABOLITIONIST, and that further you know that the slaver owners would know that, and that Lincoln KNEW THAT THEY KNEW.

Thus, his lying during the campaign, pretending to be moderate, was him lying US into war.

You did not challenge my facts in the above post #1277 from you. Therefore, This is a lie.

ALL OF THEM

Here is my fact that you failed to dispute or accept.

“The South started the CIVILWar. If you dispute that FACT show me why.”

Do you disagree with that fact.

its a fact that destroys the entirety of your Lincoln bullshit argument. Boom! Simple as that.

Silly words games to dodge the fact that your big sin, "lying us into war", especially considering the harsh standards you have been using to justify it, in the context of Bush,


applies to Presidents you like too.

 

[surada]

Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.

I am surprised you were not aware the First use of the Blitzkrieg strategy in September 1939 since you must be an admirer of a good white Christian cultural conservative like Mike Pence. who As yuh know Pence just recently survived a lynch mob speckled with American Nazi Trump supporters and white supremacists, and Christian Q-anon cult members because he failed Trump so miserably on January 6 2021.

​

After roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, more than 2,000 airplanes and more than 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939, the British gave Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler an ultimatum: pull out of Poland, or else.​

​

The Invasion of Poland Wasn't Hitler's First Aggression. Here's Why That Move Marked the Beginning of WWII

Roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, 2,000 airplanes and 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939

www.google.com

​

Hitler ignored the demand, and two days later, on Sept. 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war. Thus began World War II, and this weekend Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Poland to mark the anniversary of that event​

Was weak Poland invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was that a military outbreak of fascism that threatened the entire world or not? Was Poland a threat to Germany when the BLITZKIEG was launched by Adolp Hitler

Was weak Iraq invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was Iraq (with 200 UN INSPECTORS On the ground) a threat to its neighbors or to the rest of the world at that time? Was IRAQ a threat to The UNITED STATES of AMERICA when the March 2003 BLITZKIEG was launched by GEORGE W BUSH into Iraq?

The only thing you excel at @Correl cheapening language and farting from your brain.

You made a point. That Iraq was not a threat to our nation when we decided to invade.

My counter point was that nazi german was not a threat to us when we declared war on them.

Your attempt at rebuttal, did not contradict my point at all.


It did contain quite a bit of partisan and racist hate.


My point stands. Your point about Iraq not being a threat to us, is refuted.



A nation being a direct threat to you, is not a requirement for a Just War.


DO you have the integrity and moral courage to admit that point?



lol!!! That was a joke. Of course you do not.

Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone when Bush invaded, but its what Bibi wanted.

Bush had his reasons for invading Iraq. They were many and varied. That you are focused on what Bibi wanted is about you, not Bush, not Bush's or Trump's supporters.

They planned the invasion of Iraq before Bush junior was elected. Operation Mass Appeal was set up to demonize Saddam and sell the war in 1997-1998.. This is what Israel demanded in Clean Break Strategy.

 

[Correll]

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

This is not my opinion. This is a fact:

FACT #1

W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.

FACT #2

It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming Iraq peacefully.

Do you dispute Fact #1 in any way?


Do you dispute Fact #2 in any way? The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion? Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.

I see that President Bush said something.

I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,

THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".


But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative. Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.

 

[Correll]

Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong.

No it is impossible that Bush was sure that Iraq had WMD and was “hiding” it from 1441 inspectors in March 2003.

That is an absurd statement. That is you can say it seriously, is you revealing yourself to be completely irrational.

If he was lying on March 8 that he had made no decision on the necessity of war then he was capable of lying on March 17 that he had no doubt that Iraq possessed WMD and was hiding it from the inspectors.

SO, to support your statement that the it is a "fact" what Bush was thinking, you have a supporting argument based on an IF/THEN.

IF, he was CAPABLE of lying, that does not mean that HE DID LIE.


That you need shit like this explained to you, is you being utterly blinded by partisan hate.

To have “sure“ intelligence that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors it had to be accompanied with the specific location where it was being hidden.

Does it? I can think of several scenarios easily where that would not be true. Also, it is quite possible that he could have convinced himself that his intelligence was better than it was.

There are two points with respect to that. Number one: if George W. Bush was positive of the location of hidden stockpiles of WMD he would’ve given it to the inspectors as was required by 1441. And then he could choose to wage war if the United Nations Security Council still would not authorize military action against Iraq. He had the smoking gun.

It’s obvious Bush did not have positive intelligence because he could not share it. They didn’t have a specific location.

This is you building shit on top of a flawed argument.

And number two: the fact that when the invasion started they could not go directly to a location where the “most lethal weapons ever devised” were allegedly being hidden from the United Nations Security Council inspectors.

You are defending the President of the United States that started a $5 trillion war that killed half a million people who did not bother if what he said was true. He could not be bothered to ask his intelligence services if they were certain and if they knew exactly where the WMD was being hidden.

YOu just made that up. YOu have no way of knowing if he ever asked his people that.

He didn’t ask in my opinion because he didn’t care.

His aim was to start a war all along and no matter what response Saddam Hussein gave to the inspectors. And after March, starting a war in Iraq heat and dust storms was too late for political reasons at hone.

George W. Bush lied. Donald J Trump is correct. Bush lied us into war.
.

Do you think that GWBush thought taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic nation was the right policy for America and the World?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.

That is not a reply to what was asked.

Facts don’t give a shit if a Trump supporter believed them. Do you dispute that the following description of what happened and said true and accurate

I don’t care if you believe or disbelieve what the participants said.


Fact #1

W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.

FACT #2

It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming a Iraq peacefully.

The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion? Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.

Regarding FACT 2 I am asking your that because you specifically lied when you wrote.

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

It was not my opinion that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully. That is a fact. The entire 1441 inspection process up to Shock Awe and Blitzkrieg was peaceful. Do you dispute that?

 

[surada]

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

This is not my opinion. This is a fact:

FACT #1

W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.

FACT #2

It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming Iraq peacefully.

Do you dispute Fact #1 in any way?


Do you dispute Fact #2 in any way? The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion? Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.

I see that President Bush said something.

I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,

THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".


But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative. Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.

Saddam didn't have any WMDs.. He also didn't want Iran to know how utterly crippled Iraq was.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.

Bush did when he went to the UNSC, with the draft Resolution that became 1441 to give SH a final opportunity to comply.

Every nation on the Security Council agreed that from the unanimous vote in the affirmative the inspection chiefs on nuclear, biological and chemical proscribed weapons would go forth to see if SH would be disarmed peacefully or not.

Is that fact or is it not fact?

I don’t care that you have an opinion that SH could not be trusted or if you think W was being tricky with the world so he could get Blair to help him unilaterally disarm Iraq by the killing civilians means rather than the peaceful means.

I don’t care if you believe in all that.

The question to you is: did W go to the UN, get 1441 passed which had as its goal to try to disarm Iraq peacefully? Or did it none if that happen? Stop dancing.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.

That is not what you were asked. Did the 1441 chief weapons inspectors evaluate and report that SH was indeed cooperating prior to Bush‘s decision to invade?

Colin Powell stated on the ABC News THIS WEEK SHOW between Christmas and NEW Years three months before the Shock Awe and Blitzkrieg that SH was cooperating and that war was not inevitable.

Powell’s opinion on that matter has value. Yours and mine had no value whatsoever at the time. Our opinions matter now based upon verification of all the facts.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Does it? I can think of several scenarios easily where that would not be true.

Well, tell us about them?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,

Do you really mean that now in your exact words

“prior to the war” and if “and the experts agreed” ??

THEN YOU would have been convinced that he SH had been "disarmed".

Absolutely positively you would have agreed that it was absolutely ok with you that SH remain the dictator in Iraq. And that means starting a war to “nation build” would be canceled? Shams Amin, her two brothers and her father would not have had a bunker buster dropped on them and her mother would not become without a family and husband to care for her as her better life was to go on living in the Christian culture democracy that Dick Cheney was being so kind to bomb her into being blessed with?

Is that your position now?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.

I was not talking about statements regarding a prediction whether or whether not SH would cooperate.

I was asking you whether or not it was a fact that Dr. Hans Blix had reported to the United Nations Security Council prior to the start of the war that SH was cooperating.

Do you accept as a matter of fact that Dr. Hans Blix stated prior to the war that SH was cooperating. In fact he said that SH was proactively cooperating prior to the invasion.

YES OR NO?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Silly words games to dodge the fact t

How is asking you if you agree that the Confederates started the CIVIL WAR when they attacked and captured Fort Sumter is a silly word game.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

2. The peaceful process was not working. It could never have been "finished".

Which statement should we believe?

IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,

THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".

You said the experts would lie to prevent war didn’t you. How would know if the experts were lying or telling the truth?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It is interesting that you pretend to know what I thought in the past.

You mean you supported invading Iraq to do nation building but you gave your support for killing civilians in order to destroy their government, their police and courts and their fire department, their water and electricity infrastructure, their food production and distribution but you did not bother to ask yourself if Bush was prepared to take care of the the innocent people whose lives he would disrupt after Shocking and awe-ing them.

JESUS! Dude you are a despicable human being.