Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

What I said was clear. That you rephrased it, to change my meaning and then you addressed that, ….

What meaning did you wish to convey and in what way did I change it? You are a liar so we cannot take your word for it. Poking the bear is SH provoking, harassing, disturbing, frustrating the USA. What did you intend it to mean?

 

[Correll]

What I said was clear. That you rephrased it, to change my meaning and then you addressed that, ….

What meaning did you wish to convey and in what way did I change it? You are a liar so we cannot take your word for it. Poking the bear is SH provoking, harassing, disturbing, frustrating the USA. What did you intend it to mean?

You know I was thinking about you some, while I was away, and something occurred to me.

You seem to get a lot of your sense of self worth, from the illusion you create of being "wise" because you were "not fooled by W".


This illusion is created from a mix of taking certain data points from teh time, combined with a lot of hindsight and with that weird bit where you insist that everyone's view of the situation is the same as yours.


You've stated that what you want to have happen is for people to take these decisions, such as war or not war, more seriously and/or honestly.

BUT, it occurs to me, that NO ONE would meet your standards for this. No one could because a significant portion of your illusion is hindsight.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BUT, it occurs to me, that NO ONE would meet your standards for this. No one could because a significant portion of your illusion is hindsight.

You cant read. Nothing I say is based on hindsight. Nothing. Six out of ten Americans saw what I saw before the decision to invade was made. The four in ten that didn’t see it was compromised of very large number Republicans and a large number of them were white evangelical Christian nationalistic warmongers that had no desire to seek truth and comprehend that they were being lied into going into war in Iraq. It was predictable that the UN inspectors could have found Iraq to be disarmed without war and without killing a single Iraqi innocent civilian. That was predictable.

 

[Correll]

BUT, it occurs to me, that NO ONE would meet your standards for this. No one could because a significant portion of your illusion is hindsight.

You cant read. Nothing I say is based on hindsight. Nothing. Six out of ten Americans saw what I saw before the decision to invade was made. The four in ten that didn’t see it was compromised of very large number Republicans and a large number of them were white evangelical Christian nationalistic warmongers that had no desire to seek truth and comprehend that they were being lied into going into war in Iraq. It was predictable that the UN inspectors could have found Iraq to be disarmed without war and without killing a single Iraqi innocent civilian. That was predictable.

That bit where you made a point of mentioning their race and faith and nationalism?

That is just racism and religious bigotry and class bigotry from you.


My point stands. Your view on this, and your stated goal, ie better decision making, is irrational and delusional.

 

[surada]

BUT, it occurs to me, that NO ONE would meet your standards for this. No one could because a significant portion of your illusion is hindsight.

You cant read. Nothing I say is based on hindsight. Nothing. Six out of ten Americans saw what I saw before the decision to invade was made. The four in ten that didn’t see it was compromised of very large number Republicans and a large number of them were white evangelical Christian nationalistic warmongers that had no desire to seek truth and comprehend that they were being lied into going into war in Iraq. It was predictable that the UN inspectors could have found Iraq to be disarmed without war and without killing a single Iraqi innocent civilian. That was predictable.

That bit where you made a point of mentioning their race and faith and nationalism?

That is just racism and religious bigotry and class bigotry from you.


My point stands. Your view on this, and your stated goal, ie better decision making, is irrational and delusional.

No hindsight about.. Everyone who knows the ME opposed the invasion. Diplomats, historians, Arabs, oilmen, American expats all knew it would be an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Correll]

BUT, it occurs to me, that NO ONE would meet your standards for this. No one could because a significant portion of your illusion is hindsight.

You cant read. Nothing I say is based on hindsight. Nothing. Six out of ten Americans saw what I saw before the decision to invade was made. The four in ten that didn’t see it was compromised of very large number Republicans and a large number of them were white evangelical Christian nationalistic warmongers that had no desire to seek truth and comprehend that they were being lied into going into war in Iraq. It was predictable that the UN inspectors could have found Iraq to be disarmed without war and without killing a single Iraqi innocent civilian. That was predictable.

That bit where you made a point of mentioning their race and faith and nationalism?

That is just racism and religious bigotry and class bigotry from you.


My point stands. Your view on this, and your stated goal, ie better decision making, is irrational and delusional.

No hindsight about.. Everyone who knows the ME opposed the invasion. Diplomats, historians, Arabs, oilmen, American expats all knew it would be an unmitigated disaster.

You wish Saddam was still there? You don't like the fact that Iraqis get to vote now? Hell, I believe they even have a fairly free press.

Those are all bad to you?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You wish Saddam was still there?

You are a liar. I have not seen any anti war poster wishing that?

 

[Correll]

You wish Saddam was still there?

You are a liar. I have not seen any anti war poster wishing that?

He made the claim that the war was an "unmitigated disaster".


That statement claims that there are NO good results from it, to "mitigate" the "disaster".


That you make me explain this shit, instead of honestly addressing the valid points I make,

is a very dishonest tactic, that reveals two things.


1. You are a dishonest person.

2. That on some level, you know that the position you are defending, is wrong.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He made the claim that the war was an "unmitigated disaster".

You need to quit cheapening language. I recognize the fact that the invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster and that does not change because Saddam Hussein is no longer the dictator in Iraq and is dead. It remains a disaster because half a million Iraqis died not at the hand of the dictator but by the orders of the President of the United States who lied about the threat SH posed at the time.

Half a million innocent human beings killed who were no threat to the region or the United States is a disaster. That you state it was not a disaster is your racism and religious bigotry showing. They were Arab and Muslim who did not request that you rescue them from a dictator by Blitzkrieg, Shock and Awe.

You are a sicko.

 

[Correll]

He made the claim that the war was an "unmitigated disaster".

You need to quit cheapening language. I recognize the fact that the invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster and that does not change because Saddam Hussein is no longer the dictator in Iraq and is dead. It remains a disaster because half a million Iraqis died not at the hand of the dictator but by the orders of the President of the United States who lied about the threat SH posed at the time.

Half a million innocent human beings killed who were no threat to the region or the United States is a disaster. That you state it was not a disaster is your racism and religious bigotry showing. They were Arab and Muslim who did not request that you rescue them from a dictator by Blitzkrieg, Shock and Awe.

You are a sicko.

You are the one treating words as handfuls of poo to throw are your enemies.

"Unmitigated" means NOTHING good to "mitigate" the cost or negative outcomes.

That you pepper this discussion of semantics, with Appeal to Emotion whining like a faggot over those that died in the war, is just you using propaganda techniques because you know you can't win the debate honestly.


Oh, and you said "wacism" like a retarded child. Are you are retarded child, or just playing one? I need to know to craft my posts to your level of idiocy, to reduce the explaining simple words game you leftards love so much.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Unmitigated" means NOTHING good to "mitigate" the cost or negative outcomes.

There is no “good” outcome for those who suffered death and serious loss as a result of your violent use of massive military force and reckless desires and behavior Correll. The dead cannot vote.

 

[Correll]

"Unmitigated" means NOTHING good to "mitigate" the cost or negative outcomes.

There is no “good” outcome for those who suffered death and serious loss as a result of your violent use of massive military force and reckless desires and behavior Correll. The dead cannot vote.

Aw, isn't that cute. You respond to a general statement about the war, focusing on a specific group.


Such rampant dishonesty, is a clear indicator that you know you are in the wrong and have to be dishonest to defend your positon.


Try again this time without the bullshit.

"Unmitigated" means NOTHING good to "mitigate" the cost or negative outcomes.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That you pepper this discussion of semantics,

There is no semantics. Dead means dead. Do I need to look it up for you. killing half a million Iraqis based on a lie is a disaster. You cant escape your guilt for supporting mass murder by crying its semantics and you killed them for their own good.

 

[Correll]

That you pepper this discussion of semantics,

There is no semantics. Dead means dead. Do I need to look it up for you. killing half a million Iraqis based on a lie is a disaster. You cant escape your guilt for supporting mass murder by crying its semantics and you killed them for their own good.

We were just discussing the other poster's use of "unmitigated". You made a point about it. I responded to your point about it.


You just cut ALL of that and dropped it.

You didn't admit that you were wrong. YOu didn't build anything on it. So what was all that that other shit?

Answer: THat is what it was. YOu don't care that I showed that it was wrong. YOu weren't trying to make any point. YOu were just posting so you could pepper the posts and the thread with emotional appeals about shit.


This is the behavior of someone who believes that lying is the only way to defend his position because on some level, you understand that you are in the wrong.




That you can't admit that Saddam being gone, is a GOOD THING, is you demonstrating that you are not serious about finding the Truth, you just want to attack your enemies.


You also don't care about the people you keep citing. YOu are just USING them. That is far more disrespectful to them, then anything I have done.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Aw, isn't that cute. You respond to a general statement about the war, focusing on a specific group.

And why should I not included the dead group (all that suffered grotesque losses in Iraq caused by the decision you made from a safe distance for them) when talking about good. KILLING Half a million Iraqis is an unmitigated disaster and there is nothing that can’t mitigate the fact that you Correll decided to terminate their lives from the comfort of your own home - far from the slaughter.

And to this day you will not say that killing them was a mistake and a disaster. You therefore have no respect for Arab and Muslim lives. If that is not racism and religious bigotry perhaps you will explain why it is not.

 

[Correll]

Aw, isn't that cute. You respond to a general statement about the war, focusing on a specific group.

And why should I not included the dead group (all that suffered grotesque losses in Iraq caused by the decision you made from a safe distance for them) when talking about good. KILLING Half a million Iraqis is an unmitigated disaster and there is nothing that can’t mitigate the fact that you Correll decided to terminate their lives from the comfort of your own home - far from the slaughter.

And to this day you will not say that killing them was a mistake and a disaster. You therefore have no respect for Arab and Muslim lives. If that is not racism and religious bigotry perhaps you will explain why it is not.

In a general statement judging the war as a whole, they were included. Obviously.


What you did, was EXCLUDE everyone and everything else, in a discussion about a general statement.



That was a lie.


And it is worth noting, you are lying and stonewalling, quite strongly JUST FOR OVER A MINOR MATTER OF SEMANTICS RE THE DEFINTION OF THE WORD UNMITIGATED.


If you would lie this much and this aggressively, for such an unimportant point,


you are an utterly shameless liar, and NOTHING you claim has any validity beyond it's internal logic.


YOu don't get to say what I have said or not said. You want to know my position?


FUCKING ASK.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That you can't admit that Saddam being gone, is a GOOD THING, i

You are a liar. SH being gone is a great thing. I said it. You must not repeat that lie ever again. But saying that that does not erase the unmitigated disaster of half a million innocent Iraqis who suffered the the termination of their lives based entirely upon our military action that was based on a big lie. Thats an unmitigated disaster. Why won’t you acknowledge that disaster?

 

[Correll]

That you can't admit that Saddam being gone, is a GOOD THING, i

You are a liar. SH being gone is a great thing. I said it. You must not repeat that lie ever again. But saying that that does not erase the unmitigated disaster of half a million innocent Iraqis who suffered the the termination of their lives based entirely upon our military action that was based on a big lie. Thats an unmitigated disaster. Why won’t you acknowledge that disaster?

Mitigate does not mean erase. Are you actually unable to understand simple english or just pretending because you have argued yourself into a corner?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

In a general statement judging the war as a whole, they were included. Obviously.


What you did, was EXCLUDE everyone and everything else, in a discussion about a general statement.

I do not exclude the survivors of the unmitigated disaster that you chose to force upon the people of Iraq.


Most Sunnis in Iraq did not request your salvation from SH and still don’t. Most Shiites in IRAQ (specifically the poor) did not request your salvation from SH. The ancient Christians in Iraq suffered and are damn near extinct in their ancient homeland because you decided to remove SH from the comfort of your white Christian culture home thousands of miles removed from the death maiming bloodshed and loss of property that ensued from Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe.

The KURDS were for it but they were not living under SH authority at the time.

And you voted for a President here in the US who promotes a policy of taking Iraq’s oil because they owe us for removing SH.



*Donald Trump has long been obsessed with the idea of seizing Iraq’s oil as some kind of reimbursement for the money the U.S. has spent waging war in the Middle East. “I still can’t believe we left Iraq without the oil,” he tweeted in 2013. “It used to be, ‘To the victor belong the spoils,’” he told Matt Lauer during a campaign forum in 2016. “Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: take the oil.” The notion of looting Iraq’s natural resources—or as Trump explained the process to Lauer, “we would leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil”—was always certifiably crazy.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Mitigate does not mean erase.

I never said it means that. I said it does not erase. You are the eraser Correll. You are erasing the death from the discussion but I won’t let you.