Did you Support War in Iraq??

[irosie91]

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.

Why Hitler's grand plan during the second world war collapsed

Two key factors undermined Germany's campaign: US involvement boosted the allies' arms-producing capabilities, while sheer Soviet manpower led to catastrophic defeat in Russia. By Richard J Evans

www.google.com

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.

I would have been MUCH happier if the mission in Iraq consisted of JUST
GETTING RID OF SADAAM-----he was EVIL. ----- getting rid of that monster
also unloosed the fifth column shiite shit

 

[Correll]

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?

I did not lie. YOu are an asshole.

 

[irosie91]

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?

I did not lie. YOu are an asshole.

did I miss something-----someone claimed that Iraq invaded Saudi arabia???? -----
nope--it was Kuwait. HOWEVER there is no question that IRAN WOULD LOVE
TO TAKE THE BLACK TURD IN THE SAND and become the CONTROLLER of the
<ugh> islamic-world. -----however, I am not sure how that disgusting situation
would affect us.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We were not dependent on middle eastern oil back then.

But Europe was dependent on Middle East oil for survival.


That you don’t perceive all of Europe and Russia falling under fascists control and mass executions and genocide of the non pure white races to be a threat to our way of life tells me you would have sympathized with the fascist side back then..


When you say Germany was no threat if it gained control of the oil that the rest of the worlds democracies depended on tells me you are a fascist in heart and spirit or you enjoy arguing absurdities because are insane.

 

[Correll]

We were not dependent on middle eastern oil back then.

But Europe was dependent on Middle East oil for survival.


That you don’t perceive all of Europe and Russia falling under fascists control and mass executions and genocide of the non pure white races to be a threat to our way of life tells me you would have sympathized with the fascist side back then..


When you say Germany was no threat if it gained control of the oil that the rest of the worlds democracies depended on tells me you are a fascist in heart and spirit or you enjoy arguing absurdities because are insane.

My position is that a nation, such as Nazi Germany or Ba'athist Iraq, is by it's very existence a just target for war.

You are the one who wants to limit war, or our legal ability to wage war, so that future presidents, when faced with such situations, are unable to wage war.

SO that a future bad guy, can see easily defined and easily avoided lines, outside of which he can commit terrible atrocities and increase his power or area of control, while we sit there, and just watch, unable to respond.

Until the bad guy, the future Hitler or future Saddam, is complete ready to cross the line, on his terms, when he things he is ready to take us.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are the one who wants to limit war, or our legal ability to wage war, so that future presidents, when faced with such situations, are unable to wage war.

You are a liar. I supported W’s father in 1990
for reasons stated often here. He did not lie about why it was necessary. I Also support W’s military operation in Afghanistan and still do.

You are a liar.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

My position is that a nation, such as Nazi Germany or Ba'athist Iraq, is by it's very existence a just target for war.

They cannot be compared at all. In 1941 Germany was evil in action threatening the entire world. In 2003 IRAQ was evil inactivated by United Nations Inspections and 250,000 activated ground troops ready to invade if he did not cooperate with the inspectors. The inspector W said he wanted there to prevent war if possible. All the past transgressions and evil were taken off the table when W gave SH one last opportunity to comply as official US policy.

IRAQ didn’t have an Air Force or Navy to repel or slow a Blitzkrieg ground invasion. Germany invented Blitzkrieg in 1939. There is comparison if you are sane and have morality.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

when he things he is ready to take us.

Yeah right - Saddam was ever gonna think he could take us. You are a pathetic argument-less fool. You are being absurd..

 

[Correll]

You are the one who wants to limit war, or our legal ability to wage war, so that future presidents, when faced with such situations, are unable to wage war.

You are a liar. I supported W’s father in 1990
for reasons stated often here. He did not lie about why it was necessary. I Also support W’s military operation in Afghanistan and still do.

You are a liar.

Why? Saddam's Iraq in 1990 was not a threat to America.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why? Saddam's Iraq in 1990 was not a threat to America.

Just like Germany did in 1939 Iraq sent an army across the border in an attempt to expand its territory. That was a violation of international law. The entire world formed a coalition to remove Iraq from Kuwait. They stated what the purpose of the war was, achieved a success, and pulled out making sure not to go beyond the stated purpose of the war.

In 2003 the son of a much better bush could not form a coalition as broad as his father did and as you say he had to lie just to get the small coalition of the bribed To go along with it.

 

[Correll]

Why? Saddam's Iraq in 1990 was not a threat to America.

Just like Germany did in 1939 Iraq sent an army across the border in an attempt to expand its territory. That was a violation of international law. The entire world formed a coalition to remove Iraq from Kuwait. They stated what the purpose of the war was, achieved a success, and pulled out making sure not to go beyond the stated purpose of the war.

In 2003 the son of a much better bush could not form a coalition as broad as his father did and as you say he had to lie just to get the small coalition of the bribed To go along with it.

Got it. So the "threat to America" was just not a serious rule, just something you put out there to see if it would stick.


That point is refuted, we can move on now. Don't bring it up again.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Got it. So the "threat to America" was just not a serious rule, just something you put out there to see if it would stick.

That point is refuted, we can move on now.

What point is refuted? Iraq was a zero threat in March 2003. That is not a statement about some kind of a rule justifying war. Six months earlier SH was in violation of international law. War to remove him would have been justified if SH refused to resume inspections. Like it was in 1990 war was justified to enforce international law. If you need a comparison to 2003 let’s say the threat of force in 1990 had caused SH to withdraw from KUWAIT before the start of military action. In that case war would not have been necessary.

Thats why I say Iraq was zero threat AT THAT TIME and there was no war needed to enforce international law.

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.

So what point do you think you refuted? I suspect you are lying because you have no clue about the point I made about not starting a war against a weak nation militarily that was “AT THAT TIME” zero threat to us in any way, Or a threat to the rest of the world including IRAQ’s neighbors. AT THAT TIME.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Just like Germany did in 1939 Iraq sent an army across the border in an attempt to expand its territory. That was a violation of international law.

Since you cannot discuss the Fact that I supported a war to enforce international law - not a response to a direct threat or action against the United States, you must resort to making up some fiction and declare yourself some kind of winner.

Got it. So the "threat to America" was just not a serious rule, just something you put out there to see if it would stick.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

Saddam didn’t have any WMD to turn over. He certainly could not have turned over a large stockpile of WMD’s that he did not have.


But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”? Didn’t you support a war to nation build Iraq into a functional Democracy In the Muslim world? Even if you had to kill half a million Iraqi civilians to do it.

 

[Correll]

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.

Saddam didn’t have any WMD to turn over. He certainly could not have turned over a large stockpile of WMD’s that he did not have.


But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”? Didn’t you support a war to nation build Iraq into a functional Democracy In the Muslim world? Even if you had to kill half a million Iraqi civilians to do it.

It is very dishonest of you to ask questions about what people were doing and thinking at that time, and then to use hindsight, ie information that they did not have at that time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is very dishonest of you t

No it’s dishonest of you to avoid answering the question that was put to you. It had nothing to do with hindsight.



But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”? Didn’t you support a war to nation build Iraq into a functional Democracy In the Muslim world? Even if you had to kill half a million Iraqi civilians to do it.

 

[Correll]

It is very dishonest of you t

No it’s dishonest of you to avoid answering the question that was put to you. It had nothing to do with hindsight.



But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”? Didn’t you support a war to nation build Iraq into a functional Democracy In the Muslim world? Even if you had to kill half a million Iraqi civilians to do it.

ARE YOU DROPPING YOUR POINT ABOUT SADDAM NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

You are an idiot. Nation building was not a choice after removing the Baathist and their government from power. And specifically when you thought Iraq was was crawling with WMD that could have easily fallen into the hands of terrorists without a government keeping order in the country you just took over.

You break it you own it dunderhead.

That’s why you exhaust every peaceful means available when there is no immediate threat before breaking a Muslim Country by shock abd awe and Blitzkrieg.

Correll
* May 30, 2021
* #1,259
So to be clear, YES, I agree that Iraq did not directly threaten us.


Why are you now buying into the WMD argument for war when you said you didn’t at the time?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ARE YOU DROPPING YOUR POINT ABOUT SADDAM NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?

Saddam not being able to do what?

 

[Correll]

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.

You are an idiot. Nation building was not a choice after removing the Baathist and their government from power. And specifically when you thought Iraq was was crawling with WMD that could have easily fallen into the hands of terrorists without a government keeping order in the country you just took over.

You break it you own it dunderhead.

That’s why you exhaust every peaceful means available when there is no immediate threat before breaking a Muslim Country by shock abd awe and Blitzkrieg.

Correll
* May 30, 2021
* #1,259

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


Why are you now buying into the WMD argument for war when you said you didn’t at the time?

What are you talking about?