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: 23 31.1%
  • No

    Votes: 51 68.9%

  • Total voters
    74

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
78,902
Reaction score
18,999
Points
2,220
That is funny. You state that you are not judging him and then you IMMEDIATELY JUDGE HIM.


I’m not judging W. I’m testifying that what he did was a lie. I’m telling you that he said ``If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,' to my Senators. He lied to Congress.

You can’t refute my testimony so you whine that I’m judging him unfairly.

If we can’t criticize a President who lies to Congress what can we criticize?


You support W for lying. You have no morals or decency.,


1. You said this.

"He is a corrupt liar and was unfit to be President abd must never be respected for dishonesty in that office."

That is you judging.


2. Don't move that goal post by adding qualifiers.


3. Now, I don't even remember the point I was making in pointing out that you were judging him because you bogged down the discussion in nonsense and cut everything. That is the actions of a man willing to use dishonesty to defend his position.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
78,902
Reaction score
18,999
Points
2,220
I recall you making a point about iraq not being a direct threat. My response was in response to that.

Your recall sucks.


HERE’s what went down.


NotfooledbyW
* May 29, 2021
* #1,205
Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough.


Correll
* May 29, 2021
* #1,212
1. Starting a war with a nation that is not a threat to us is not depraved. Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole.


NotfooledbyW
* May 30, 2021
* #1,252
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?


Correll
* May 30, 2021
* #1,253
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.

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


NotfooledbyW
* May 30, 2021
* #1,255
Do you believe that is true? YES or NO?


Correll
* May 30, 2021
* #1,259
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.

So to be clear, YES, I agree that Iraq did not directly threaten us.

BUT, DO YOU AGREE THAT NOT BEING DIRECTLY THREATENED, is not a bar to war? as in my example with Nazi Germany?

Or do you think that our declaration of war on Nazi Germany was a mistake?


Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.


Nazi Germany was bogged down already in a two front war between the British Empire and the Soviet Union. They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.

Yet, we declared war on them, and waged it, with great energy and effect.


Do you think that was unfair of US?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,607
Reaction score
2,028
Points
245
They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.


Is that your wiggle and squirm language?


Not much of a threat in 1941 you say.

* On 4 September 1941 during the "Greer Incident" the destroyer USS Greer was fired upon with torpedoes by U-652.
* On 18 October 1941 HMS Broadwater was sunk by U-101. Among the fatalities was Lt John Stanley Parker RNVR an American [8]
* Either the casualties inflicted on USS Kearny by U-568 on 17 October 1941 (11 KIA)[9] or the sinking of the USS Reuben James by U-552 on 31 October 1941, (115 KIA)[10]

The fascist Germans killed 127 Americans sailors prior to US declaration of war. So apparently looking back is to a fascist like you is ‘not much of a threat’ . You are depraved.

DId Iraq have a fleet of submarines with torpedoes going after US ships in the Gulf area or did Iraq have zero threat capability to our ships.



NotfooledbyW
* May 29, 2021
* #1,205
Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough.


Did we start WWII in order to “nation build” Germany in 1941 or did Germany start the war with the United States when they attacked our Navy and declared war on us.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
78,902
Reaction score
18,999
Points
2,220
They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.


Is that your wiggle and squirm language?


Not much of a threat in 1941 you say.

* On 4 September 1941 during the "Greer Incident" the destroyer USS Greer was fired upon with torpedoes by U-652.
* On 18 October 1941 HMS Broadwater was sunk by U-101. Among the fatalities was Lt John Stanley Parker RNVR an American [8]
* Either the casualties inflicted on USS Kearny by U-568 on 17 October 1941 (11 KIA)[9] or the sinking of the USS Reuben James by U-552 on 31 October 1941, (115 KIA)[10]

The fascist Germans killed 127 Americans sailors prior to US declaration of war. So apparently looking back is to a fascist like you that is ‘not much of a threat’

DId Iraq have a fleet of submarines with torpedoes going after US ships in the Gulf area or did Iraq have zero threat capability to our ships.



NotfooledbyW
* May 29, 2021
* #1,205
Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough.


Did we start WWII in order to “nation build” Germany in 1941 or did Germany start the war with the United States when they attacked our Navy and declared war on us.


no, Iraq could not do that.

They could have attacked Saudi Arabia, threatening the world's supply of oil. They could have supplied terrorists with chemical weapons, that could have killed thousands of Americans.

Indeed, they did invade Saudi Arabia, but we were there to stop them.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,607
Reaction score
2,028
Points
245
They could have attacked Saudi Arabia,


You are being absurd. After 1441 there was no way Iraq wanted to or had any capability like the Germans had when they attacked all their neighbors.


The Saudis were like 6 out of 10 Americans polled and most governments in the entire world that wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time and knick off the ground invasion nonsense for peace and stability in the region.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,095
Reaction score
8,301
Points
1,108
They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.


Is that your wiggle and squirm language?


Not much of a threat in 1941 you say.

* On 4 September 1941 during the "Greer Incident" the destroyer USS Greer was fired upon with torpedoes by U-652.
* On 18 October 1941 HMS Broadwater was sunk by U-101. Among the fatalities was Lt John Stanley Parker RNVR an American [8]
* Either the casualties inflicted on USS Kearny by U-568 on 17 October 1941 (11 KIA)[9] or the sinking of the USS Reuben James by U-552 on 31 October 1941, (115 KIA)[10]

The fascist Germans killed 127 Americans sailors prior to US declaration of war. So apparently looking back is to a fascist like you that is ‘not much of a threat’

DId Iraq have a fleet of submarines with torpedoes going after US ships in the Gulf area or did Iraq have zero threat capability to our ships.



NotfooledbyW
* May 29, 2021
* #1,205
Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough.


Did we start WWII in order to “nation build” Germany in 1941 or did Germany start the war with the United States when they attacked our Navy and declared war on us.


no, Iraq could not do that.

They could have attacked Saudi Arabia, threatening the world's supply of oil. They could have supplied terrorists with chemical weapons, that could have killed thousands of Americans.

Indeed, they did invade Saudi Arabia, but we were there to stop them.

Saudi Arabia opposed the invasion of Iraq as foolhardy and implored Saddam to come to KSA and live in a compound. Iraq did NOT invade KSA.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,095
Reaction score
8,301
Points
1,108
They could have attacked Saudi Arabia,


You are being absurd. After 1441 there was no way Iraq wanted to or had any capability like the Germans had when they attacked all their neighbors.


The Saudis were like 6 out of 10 Americans polled and most governments in the entire world that wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time and knick off the ground invasion nonsense for peace and stability in the region.

Prince Bandar was recalled to Saudi Arabia because he failed to dissuade Dubya from invading Iraq.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,607
Reaction score
2,028
Points
245
They could have supplied terrorists with chemical weapons, that could have killed thousands of Americans.


But you say that’s not the argument that convinced you at the time that it was necessary to kill half a million Iraqi civilians and spend $5 trillion in order to set up a Christian culture style democracy in the Middle East because Iraq was a great candidate for that.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,095
Reaction score
8,301
Points
1,108
They could have supplied terrorists with chemical weapons, that could have killed thousands of Americans.


But you say that’s not the argument that convinced you at the time that it was necessary to kill half a million Iraqi civilians and spend $5 trillion in order to set up a Christian culture style democracy in the Middle East because Iraq was a great candidate for that.

That's the core problem.. These ugly, ignorant people think they have some right to force change on foreigners.
 

DrLove

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
32,320
Reaction score
15,297
Points
1,600
Location
Central Oregon Coast
Nope, said the wife at the time - “Oh God, here we go again!”
I knew the Bushistas were lying about WMD. Dirty Dick just wanted a war - ANY war.
Turned out to be one of the worst foreign policy blunder in US History right up there with Vietnam.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,607
Reaction score
2,028
Points
245
You cannot then judge him actions as though he agreed with you, that Saddam might have been disarmed peacefully.


Let me clarify what I said based on your exact statement. I am not judging W actions as though he did not agree with me that Saddam could have been disarmed peacefully. I’m condemning him because he stated publicly his agreement with me that it was best to disarm Iraq by getting the inspectors back into Iraq. BUT HE WAS LYING. That is a reality you condone so I don’t. I’m condemning W for lying for six months in a ramp up for war.


Now you tell me it’s my fault for not knowing W needed to lie so he could get support to invade a Muslim nation just because he wanted to.

If W believed what you say he believed that Saddam would never have disarmed he should not have lied to members of Congress that he believed SH would do It. He lied to get an AUMF that he did not really need as part of the war on terror. He could have skipped the whole UN waste of time and asking Congress for an AUMF if he knew all along he was not going to pay any attention to it.

You don’t think lying by W to drum up fake support for his stupid war is wrong. You are corrupt depraved and an ugly American - No wonder you love Trump even though he ‘judged’ Bush to be a liar to help win the nomination in 2016.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,607
Reaction score
2,028
Points
245
That is the crux of our disagreement. We disagree whether all possible peaceful solutions were exhausted.


It’s not a disagreement. All possible peaceful solutions were not exhausted. You have told us that the US President is a liar. He was the onc saying all peaceful solutions were exhausted. He is a liar.

The Chief weapons inspectors reported proactive cooperation in February so from that point on there was no reason to end the peaceful means of disarming Iraq.

You expect us to believe a liar that you admit is a liar. You are mad.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,607
Reaction score
2,028
Points
245
Nazi Germany was bogged down already in a two front war between the British Empire and the Soviet Union. They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.


Germany embarked upon a war of conquest in order to have permanent access to oil. The Germans were advancing winter of 1941- 1942 to capture the Suez Canal and access to the vast oil fields in the Muddle East.

Oil was everything:

“Above all, the Reich was short of fuel. Romania and Hungary supplied a large proportion of Germany's needs. But this was not enough to satisfy the appetite of the Wehrmacht's gas-guzzling tanks and fighter planes.
Rommel's eastward push across northern Africa was designed not just to cut off Britain's supply route through the Suez canal but above all to break through to the Middle East and gain control over the region's vast reserves of oil. In mid-1942 he captured the key seaport of Tobruk. “



Hitler gaining control of Middle East oil fields was a severe threat to our way of life unless you consider our way of life to be comfortable under a fascism..
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,095
Reaction score
8,301
Points
1,108
Nazi Germany was bogged down already in a two front war between the British Empire and the Soviet Union. They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.


Germany embarked upon a war of conquest in order to have permanent access to oil. The Germans were advancing winter of 1941- 1942 to capture the Suez Canal and access to the vast oil fields in the Muddle East.

Oil was everything:

“Above all, the Reich was short of fuel. Romania and Hungary supplied a large proportion of Germany's needs. But this was not enough to satisfy the appetite of the Wehrmacht's gas-guzzling tanks and fighter planes.
Rommel's eastward push across northern Africa was designed not just to cut off Britain's supply route through the Suez canal but above all to break through to the Middle East and gain control over the region's vast reserves of oil. In mid-1942 he captured the key seaport of Tobruk. “



Hitler gaining control of Middle East oil fields was a severe threat to our way of life unless you consider our way of life to be comfortable under a fascism..

Hitler wanted to control all the oil fields from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf.. He called it PLAN ORIENT.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
78,902
Reaction score
18,999
Points
2,220
They could have attacked Saudi Arabia,


You are being absurd. After 1441 there was no way Iraq wanted to or had any capability like the Germans had when they attacked all their neighbors.


The Saudis were like 6 out of 10 Americans polled and most governments in the entire world that wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time and knick off the ground invasion nonsense for peace and stability in the region.


THey didn't have to be "LIKE" the germans. That is a silly thing to say.

THe point is that your bar on "threat to America" has never been a rule.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
78,902
Reaction score
18,999
Points
2,220
They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.


Is that your wiggle and squirm language?


Not much of a threat in 1941 you say.

* On 4 September 1941 during the "Greer Incident" the destroyer USS Greer was fired upon with torpedoes by U-652.
* On 18 October 1941 HMS Broadwater was sunk by U-101. Among the fatalities was Lt John Stanley Parker RNVR an American [8]
* Either the casualties inflicted on USS Kearny by U-568 on 17 October 1941 (11 KIA)[9] or the sinking of the USS Reuben James by U-552 on 31 October 1941, (115 KIA)[10]

The fascist Germans killed 127 Americans sailors prior to US declaration of war. So apparently looking back is to a fascist like you that is ‘not much of a threat’

DId Iraq have a fleet of submarines with torpedoes going after US ships in the Gulf area or did Iraq have zero threat capability to our ships.



NotfooledbyW
* May 29, 2021
* #1,205
Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough.


Did we start WWII in order to “nation build” Germany in 1941 or did Germany start the war with the United States when they attacked our Navy and declared war on us.


no, Iraq could not do that.

They could have attacked Saudi Arabia, threatening the world's supply of oil. They could have supplied terrorists with chemical weapons, that could have killed thousands of Americans.

Indeed, they did invade Saudi Arabia, but we were there to stop them.

Saudi Arabia opposed the invasion of Iraq as foolhardy and implored Saddam to come to KSA and live in a compound. Iraq did NOT invade KSA.


Irrelevant.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
78,902
Reaction score
18,999
Points
2,220
They could have attacked Saudi Arabia,


You are being absurd. After 1441 there was no way Iraq wanted to or had any capability like the Germans had when they attacked all their neighbors.


The Saudis were like 6 out of 10 Americans polled and most governments in the entire world that wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time and knick off the ground invasion nonsense for peace and stability in the region.

Prince Bandar was recalled to Saudi Arabia because he failed to dissuade Dubya from invading Iraq.

Irrelevant.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,095
Reaction score
8,301
Points
1,108
They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.


Is that your wiggle and squirm language?


Not much of a threat in 1941 you say.

* On 4 September 1941 during the "Greer Incident" the destroyer USS Greer was fired upon with torpedoes by U-652.
* On 18 October 1941 HMS Broadwater was sunk by U-101. Among the fatalities was Lt John Stanley Parker RNVR an American [8]
* Either the casualties inflicted on USS Kearny by U-568 on 17 October 1941 (11 KIA)[9] or the sinking of the USS Reuben James by U-552 on 31 October 1941, (115 KIA)[10]

The fascist Germans killed 127 Americans sailors prior to US declaration of war. So apparently looking back is to a fascist like you that is ‘not much of a threat’

DId Iraq have a fleet of submarines with torpedoes going after US ships in the Gulf area or did Iraq have zero threat capability to our ships.



NotfooledbyW
* May 29, 2021
* #1,205
Starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to our national security or peace in the region in order to nation build is depraved enough.


Did we start WWII in order to “nation build” Germany in 1941 or did Germany start the war with the United States when they attacked our Navy and declared war on us.


no, Iraq could not do that.

They could have attacked Saudi Arabia, threatening the world's supply of oil. They could have supplied terrorists with chemical weapons, that could have killed thousands of Americans.

Indeed, they did invade Saudi Arabia, but we were there to stop them.

Saudi Arabia opposed the invasion of Iraq as foolhardy and implored Saddam to come to KSA and live in a compound. Iraq did NOT invade KSA.


Irrelevant.

If its irrevelant,, why lie about it?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
78,902
Reaction score
18,999
Points
2,220
You cannot then judge him actions as though he agreed with you, that Saddam might have been disarmed peacefully.


Let me clarify what I said based on your exact statement. I am not judging W actions as though he did not agree with me that Saddam could have been disarmed peacefully. I’m condemning him because he stated publicly his agreement with me that it was best to disarm Iraq by getting the inspectors back into Iraq. BUT HE WAS LYING. That is a reality you condone so I don’t. I’m condemning W for lying for six months in a ramp up for war.


Now you tell me it’s my fault for not knowing W needed to lie so he could get support to invade a Muslim nation just because he wanted to.

If W believed what you say he believed that Saddam would never have disarmed he should not have lied to members of Congress that he believed SH would do It. He lied to get an AUMF that he did not really need as part of the war on terror. He could have skipped the whole UN waste of time and asking Congress for an AUMF if he knew all along he was not going to pay any attention to it.

You don’t think lying by W to drum up fake support for his stupid war is wrong. You are corrupt depraved and an ugly American - No wonder you love Trump even though he ‘judged’ Bush to be a liar to help win the nomination in 2016.


IF Saddam had come clean at the last moment, presenting a large stockpile of wmds, to be properly destroyed,


imo, Bush would have been forced by his earlier words, to back off the invasion.



You are also ignoring that, in Bush's mind, war was the right thing to do, YOu keep harping on YOUR view of the war, as though we should use that as a reason to judge Bush more harshly.


You NEVER wax poetic about the oppression under Saddam, nor the human cost of the wars HE launched, nor the human cost of the terrorism he supported, nor the way he fired rockets blindly into Israel, hoping to cause enough civilian deaths to force an Israeli response, in hopes of causing a wider war.


How about some imagery from you on what if he got his wish and the Arab Street rose up and demanded their governments fight back against the "Christian invaders"?

Riots and street battles, in residential areas, in possibly a dozen countries leading to a major regional war, with millions of men marching and dying, with world oil production and distribution all fucked up, leading to economic and political turmoil around the world.


Yes, Before you get emotional about the cost of what BUSH, did, even one more time I want a couple posts, expressing your shock and horror at what Saddam did and wanted to do.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
78,902
Reaction score
18,999
Points
2,220
Nazi Germany was bogged down already in a two front war between the British Empire and the Soviet Union. They were not much of a threat to US, at that time.


Germany embarked upon a war of conquest in order to have permanent access to oil. The Germans were advancing winter of 1941- 1942 to capture the Suez Canal and access to the vast oil fields in the Muddle East.

Oil was everything:

“Above all, the Reich was short of fuel. Romania and Hungary supplied a large proportion of Germany's needs. But this was not enough to satisfy the appetite of the Wehrmacht's gas-guzzling tanks and fighter planes.
Rommel's eastward push across northern Africa was designed not just to cut off Britain's supply route through the Suez canal but above all to break through to the Middle East and gain control over the region's vast reserves of oil. In mid-1942 he captured the key seaport of Tobruk. “



Hitler gaining control of Middle East oil fields was a severe threat to our way of life unless you consider our way of life to be comfortable under a fascism..


We were not dependent on middle eastern oil back then.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top