Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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

Saddam not being able to do what?

Seriously? You really lost the thread of your own argument that fast?

STOP CUTTING SHIT.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What are you talking about?

You made an idiotic comment.

“ the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.”

You cant remove a dictator from power and walk away. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to protect THE PEOPLE and their property.

 

[Correll]

What are you talking about?

You made an idiotic comment.

“ the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.”

You cant remove a dictator from power and walk away. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to protect THE PEOPLE and their property.

That is your opinion.

My comment was in the context of another point you made, if I recall correctly, where you were acting as though nation building was the justification for war, as opposed to a goal.


That you take it out of context and try to build a fresh line of attack, is dishonest and lame.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You really lost the thread of your own argument that fast?

No, I figure you are a monkey flinging shit around because that is all you do well.


I have no idea what you are referring to but In nit dropping any points and who could know what this means? “ …. SADDAM NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?

WHAT is “that”

 

[Correll]

You really lost the thread of your own argument that fast?

No, I figure you are a monkey flinging shit around because that is all you do well.


I have no idea what you are referring to but In nit dropping any points and who could know what this means? “ …. SADDAM NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?

WHAT is “that”

Not being able to produce a large stockpile of wmds, to be destroyed.

You were making the claim that Bush was "lying" by "going though the motions".


I pointed out that IF Saddam had called Bush's "bluff" so to speak, that Bush would have been, imo, forced to call off the invasion.


You brought up something that was not known as fact, at that time, which was dishonest and unfair of you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You were making the claim that Bush was "lying" by "going though the motions".

You said W was “going through the motions” that is lying. saying one thing opposite what he planned on doing all along.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Not being able to produce a large stockpile of wmds, to be destroyed.

You were making the claim that Bush was "lying" by "going though the motions".

I pointed out that IF Saddam had called Bush's "bluff" so to speak, that Bush would have been, imo, forced to call off the invasion.

You brought up something that was not known as fact, at that time, which was dishonest and unfair of you

And I asked you

But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”?

Still waiting for your answer.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

Did SH do any of that after W drafted 1441 and got it unanimously passed and inspections resumed to disarm Iraq peacefully?

 

[Correll]

You were making the claim that Bush was "lying" by "going though the motions".

You said W was “going through the motions” that is lying. saying one thing opposite what he planned on doing all along.

What do you think would have happened, if Saddam had produced his large stockpile of wmds, to be destroyed?

 

[Correll]

Not being able to produce a large stockpile of wmds, to be destroyed.

You were making the claim that Bush was "lying" by "going though the motions".

I pointed out that IF Saddam had called Bush's "bluff" so to speak, that Bush would have been, imo, forced to call off the invasion.

You brought up something that was not known as fact, at that time, which was dishonest and unfair of you

And I asked you

But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”?

Still waiting for your answer.

No. YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point.


You admit you are dropping the bs attack, and I will be happy to move on to the next point.


None of this shit, or I start calling you WALLY.

 

[Correll]

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.

Did SH do any of that after W drafted 1441 and got it unanimously passed and inspections resumed to disarm Iraq peacefully?

Yes. And you never talk about that human suffering, with any feeling, or drama, the way you harp on it when it serves your purpose.

I guess human suffering is relative... depending on whether it is useful to you or not.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No. YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point.

This question has nothing to do with you NOT knowing if SH had WMD at the time. Try reading it.

But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”?

You argue with no backup that you and fellow warmongers won the debate for war in October 2002 based on not much more than SH was evil. Yes SH was evil but the argument for war depended on suspicion that SH was hiding WMD from 1441 inspectors in March 2003.

Your posts indicate you are wavering on your original “WMD!s didn’t matter” argument.

Which would be good except you have drifted into justification for war because The Third Reich was not a threat in 1941 even though they killed 127 American sailors on the high seas before declaring war on us and were on the March to take over large parts of the world with the most powerful military on earth at the time.

 

[Correll]

No. YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point.

This question has nothing to do with you NOT knowing if SH had WMD at the time. Try reading it.

But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”?

You argue with no backup that you and fellow warmongers won the debate for war in October 2002 based on not much more than SH was evil. Yes SH was evil but the argument for war depended on suspicion that SH was hiding WMD from 1441 inspectors in March 2003.

Your posts indicate you are wavering on your original “WMD!s didn’t matter” argument.

Which would be good except you have drifted into justification for war because The Third Reich was not a threat in 1941 even though they killed 127 American sailors on the high seas before declaring war on us and were on the March to take over large parts of the world with the most powerful military on earth at the time.

Your words from the previous post.


"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."


Are you dropping that point?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes. And you never talk about that human suffering, with any feeling, or drama, the way you harp on it when it serves your purpose.

The human suffering you supported was worse than what SH ever did. THE ENDS do not justify the means when you directly take another’s life who did not want your ends.

Most importantly SH was not causing human suffering after 1441.

We cant control what every bad actor does in the world but we should be responsible for what we do with the most powerful military in the history of mankind.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Are you dropping that point?

No. It’s a fact.

I posted it because you said Bush couldn’t have invaded if SH turned over a large pile of WMDs


So I’m asking why not?

But why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors”?

It has nothing to do with taking advantage of hindsight whatsoever.


Why cant you answer this?

Why would Bush have been forced to back off the invasion when it was justified by all the non-wmd related “whereas factors” as you have been arguing for months.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point.

If you wanted it, there was plenty of available knowledge we the people did have prior to the invasion sufficient to possess a great deal of certainty that SH was telling the truth when he said he did not have any WMD. I was certain for many reasons the WMD was not going to be found by the invading military amidst all the death and destruction.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Where in the above quote did I say the UN is a world Government.

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 fucking UN.

What is “confusing” about the US Government seeking authorization and support through the United Nations to resolve a continued threat without war. This made it into the AUMF with regard to Iraq:


SECTION. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


W did part 2 when he got 1441 passed. Why do you reject peaceful solutions to the world’s problems?

Think the lives of American men and women who choose to serve instead of your ugly right wing tribal desire to break things first and do peaceful things later.

 

[Correll]

Yes. And you never talk about that human suffering, with any feeling, or drama, the way you harp on it when it serves your purpose.

The human suffering you supported was worse than what SH ever did. THE ENDS do not justify the means when you directly take another’s life who did not want your ends.

Most importantly SH was not causing human suffering after 1441.

We cant control what every bad actor does in the world but we should be responsible for what we do with the most powerful military in the history of mankind.

My point was very simple. YOu are using appeals to emotion as an argument, and the fact that you only care about the human suffering that serves your partisan agenda, shows that you really don't care about any of the human suffering.

You are just using it.


I DO care about the human suffering. But I am NOT using it.

I believe that I can defend my position or arguments based on their internal logic.


YOu feel you need to use tactics to DISTRACT the reader(s) from the logic of your arguments.


Because, deep down, you know your argument is deeply flawed.

 

[Correll]

Are you dropping that point?

No. It’s a fact.

I posted it because you said Bush couldn’t have invaded if SH turned over a large pile of WMDs


So I’m asking why not?

...

You can't do that. The people at the time did not have that information. When you put forth that point you are not asking that question but making the FALSE point implication that Bush's action's were lies because he knew that Saddam COULD NOT comply.


You are pretending to ask one question while actually making a different point.


FUnny how many of your tactics are designed to undermine logical debate, not enhance it or use it.

Almost like, deep down, you know that logic and truth won't lead where you want to go.

 

[Correll]

YOu don't get to slam me with a bullshit attack based on knowledge the people did NOT have at the time and then just move on, to the next point.

If you wanted it, there was plenty of available knowledge we the people did have prior to the invasion sufficient to possess a great deal of certainty that SH was telling the truth when he said he did not have any WMD. I was certain for many reasons the WMD was not going to be found by the invading military amidst all the death and destruction.

Irrelevant. You have to judge the people by the information and perceptions they had when they were making their decisions.


Indeed, if you were an honest, good faith debater, you would WANT to do that.


That you don't, is very telling.