Did you Support War in Iraq??

[surada]

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.

Everybody in the ME knew that Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.

That wasn't hindsight.. That was knowing the about the region and the players.

Of course Iran is ascendant. That was expected... Why the hell do you think the Dual Containment policy worked for 20 years.

 

[Correll]

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.

....

When you responded to my point about "unmitigated" with a point based solely on the dead, you did exclude the "survivors" of the war.

That you can't bring yourself to tell the truth, on such a minor point, shows how insanely dishonest you are.


Please consider all you claim, past, present and future, to be dismissed. Only the internal logic of your arguments will be considered from now on.


Or the lack there of.

 

[Correll]

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.

We were talking about "unmitigated" and you used the word "erase" to argue against it.


That was YOU conflating the two, not me.


That you deny it now, probably just a lie. Or maybe you forgot. You do seem to have argued yourself into a corner and you can't see a way out.


Which is funny, because this is an insanely minor point, with no larger relevance.


BUT, you can't tell the truth. YOu cant.

 

[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.

Everybody in the ME knew that Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.

That wasn't hindsight.. That was knowing the about the region and the players.

Of course Iran is ascendant. That was expected... Why the hell do you think the Dual Containment policy worked for 20 years.

i'm discussing Not's position. Try to be less... you.

 

[surada]

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.

Everybody in the ME knew that Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.

That wasn't hindsight.. That was knowing the about the region and the players.

Of course Iran is ascendant. That was expected... Why the hell do you think the Dual Containment policy worked for 20 years.

i'm discussing Not's position. Try to be less... you.

There were 50 Christian churches in Baghdad before Bush's invasion. Do you think Bush/Cheney gave a shit about that?

Meanwhile, Dubya was posturing as an Evangelical who was fighting God and Magog.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

When are you going to explain the good that came to a young waitress working in a restaurant who’s torso was blown in half by a bunker buster bomb that was dropped by the US military at your request. She was blessed with her father and two brothers being killed in the same blast. They are in the ‘dead’ group. Her mother survived. If she survived the unmitigated disaster that you support she is in the alive group. And you sit here today telling me that she has it ‘good’ now thanks to you killing her sons, daughter and husband. Have you read the difficulties that widowed women face in Iraq.


I don’t exclude the surviving group. Most did not want your liberation and democracy forced upon them at the barrel of a gun held by a good many Christian soldiers.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That was YOU conflating the two, not me.

I’m not conflating - you are attempting to erase the damaged dead and suffering Iraqis who received no ‘good’ from the disaster of the 2003 Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe that you decided to inflict upon them. And you still won’t admit it was a disaster that could have been easily avoided.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When you responded to my point about "unmitigated" with a point based solely on the dead, you did exclude the "survivors" of the war.

You are liar. The use of the word ‘solely’ comes from you. I write this:

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.

I wrote “ There is no “good” outcome for those who suffered death and serious loss” … which means I acknowledged that there are survivors of the war you chose for them. That is not exclusion. I mentioned the survivors as the ones who lived and voted.


So are a liar once again.

The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster because too many Iraqis were killed in a cause that was not their cause. It was your cause. We humans should not needlessly kill half a million from any group and say to the survivors that it was for the greater good to ease the collective conscience of aggressor.

 

[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.

Everybody in the ME knew that Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.

That wasn't hindsight.. That was knowing the about the region and the players.

Of course Iran is ascendant. That was expected... Why the hell do you think the Dual Containment policy worked for 20 years.

i'm discussing Not's position. Try to be less... you.

There were 50 Christian churches in Baghdad before Bush's invasion. Do you think Bush/Cheney gave a shit about that?

Meanwhile, Dubya was posturing as an Evangelical who was fighting God and Magog.

Did you? Or are you just using them for your partisan purposes?

 

[Correll]

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.

When are you going to explain the good that came to a young waitress working in a restaurant who’s torso was blown in half by a bunker buster bomb that was dropped by the US military at your request. She was blessed with her father and two brothers being killed in the same blast. They are in the ‘dead’ group. Her mother survived. If she survived the unmitigated disaster that you support she is in the alive group. And you sit here today telling me that she has it ‘good’ now thanks to you killing her sons, daughter and husband. Have you read the difficulties that widowed women face in Iraq.


I don’t exclude the surviving group. Most did not want your liberation and democracy forced upon them at the barrel of a gun held by a good many Christian soldiers.

Are you truly prepared to present yourself as being so stupid that you cannot make the mental leap that any mitigating goods occurred to people that were not blown up?

 

[Correll]

That was YOU conflating the two, not me.

I’m not conflating - you are attempting to erase the damaged dead and suffering Iraqis who received no ‘good’ from the disaster of the 2003 Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe that you decided to inflict upon them. And you still won’t admit it was a disaster that could have been easily avoided.

I did no such thing. While I have stooped to making numerous appeals to emotion, which loom so large in your supporting arguments, I am well aware of the human cost of war.


Indeed, the fact that I do not callously use their suffering as a cheap rhetorical device, is me showing them far more respect than you.


And it is worth noting that you are STILL conflating the two even as you deny doing it.


A discussion of mitigating factors, does NOT "erase" those that suffers.


You are truly making a fool of yourself at this point.


How can you not just admit that the removal of Saddam is, ,at least, a mitigating result?

 

[Correll]

When you responded to my point about "unmitigated" with a point based solely on the dead, you did exclude the "survivors" of the war.

You are liar. The use of the word ‘solely’ comes from you. I write this:

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.

I wrote “ There is no “good” outcome for those who suffered death and serious loss” … which means I acknowledged that there are survivors of the war you chose for them. That is not exclusion. I mentioned the survivors as the ones who lived and voted.


So are a liar once again.

The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster because too many Iraqis were killed in a cause that was not their cause. It was your cause. We humans should not needlessly kill half a million from any group and say to the survivors that it was for the greater good to ease the collective conscience of aggressor.

When you respond to a general statement, with a point about a smaller sub set, with no mention of any other result, you are excluding the others.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Did you?

I’m not using anybody for anything. I date the facts and the repercussions of your decision to liberate Iraq when the Iraqis did not ask you to liberate them.

I care about all humans who share our existence so I oppose dropping massive bombs on people and destroying the Government under which they live who are zero threat to peace and security in the world. That specifically includes the ancient Christians who have existed in Iraq for over a thousand years. Its an unmitigated disaster that you and George W Bush, both alleged Christians yourselves decided to wipe out an ancient Christian culture through reckless and unnecessary military aggression.

I’m sure that was an unintended consequence of your disastrous nation building program but that’s what makes it a disaster: you still have learned nothing from it.

 

[Correll]

Did you?

I’m not using anybody for anything. I date the facts and the repercussions of your decision to liberate Iraq when the Iraqis did not ask you to liberate them.

I care about all humans who share our existence so I oppose dropping massive bombs on people and destroying the Government under which they live who are zero threat to peace and security in the world. That specifically includes the ancient Christians who have existed in Iraq for over a thousand years. Its an unmitigated disaster that you and George W Bush, both alleged Christians yourselves decided to wipe out an ancient Christian culture through reckless and unnecessary military aggression.

I’m sure that was an unintended consequence of your disastrous nation building program but that’s what makes it a disaster: you still have learned nothing from it.

My question was aimed at Surda, who clearly was using them for an Appeal to Emotion.


And you have certainly done the same.


Your denial is retarded. And a lie.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

did no such thing. While I have stooped to making numerous appeals to emotion, which loom so large in your supporting arguments, I am well aware of the human cost of war.

Iraq is a discussion about the human cost of unnecessary military aggression not about the human cost of a justified and necessary war.

I am sure you are aware of the human cost of war - there is a distinction that you do not make with regard to Iraq. the human cost in the entire world from Japanese and German aggression was a disaster that ended with benefits such as preservation of liberal self rule and democracy. But Germans and Japanese’s were not innocent bystanders swept up by dictatorships seeking to enslave and dominate the world. The people of those countries supported the fascist regimes with heart soul and body.

Your argument for good outcomes works for Democratic nations defending themselves in a just war but not with Iraq.

Iraq was not necessary in any sense in March 2003 so there is no outcome possible that justified taking the first Iraqi life to the last life taken directly or indirectly through the course of that war.

There is no justification for killing Iraqis to remove SH when there was no aggression coming from anyone in Iraq in March 2003. The aggression came from you and your Republican ilk. A good many of them were white evangelical pro -invasion Christians and I will never allow you to hide that fact.. Because you are still one and still advocating for killing Iraqis who were no threat to you whatsoever at the time.

 

[Correll]

did no such thing. While I have stooped to making numerous appeals to emotion, which loom so large in your supporting arguments, I am well aware of the human cost of war.

I am sure you are aware if the hunan cist if war - there is a distinction that you do not make with regard to Iraq. the human cost in the entire world from Japanese and German aggression was a disaster that ende with benefits such as preservation of liberal self rule and democracy. But Germans and Japanese’s were not innocent bystanders swept up by dictatorships seeking your enslave and dominate the world. The people if that countries supported the fascist regimes with heart soul and body.

Your argument for good outcomes works for Democratic nations defending themselves but not with Iraq.

Iraq was not necessary in any sense in March 2003 so there is no outcome possible that justified taking the first Iraqi life to the last life taken directly or indirectly through the course of that war.

There just us no justification for killing Iraqus to remove SH when There ceases no aggression coming from anyone in Iraq in March 2003. The aggression came from you and your Republican ilk. A good many of them white evangelical Pro-invasion Christians and I will never allow you to hide that fact.. Because you are still one and still advocating for killing Iraqis who were no threat to you whatsoever.

So, you're dropping that nonsense about pretending to not know the meaning of the word "unmitigated"?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your denial is retarded. And a lie.

I am not using anybody for anything. I am merely stating facts that you cannot attempt to deny. So how is stating facts retarded and a lie. please explain.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So, you're dropping that nonsense about pretending to not know the meaning of the word "unmitigated"?

No. I know exactly what unmitigated means. There is nothing that mitigates the deaths of all the Iraqis you decided to kill by sending them your Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe nation building project in a Muslim land on March 19 2003 as soon as the UN inspectors could get out.

And recently you said this:

The Iraqis did fairly poorly at forming and maintaining their democracy and really shitty at DEFENDING their democracy from the Islamic Terrorists.

So you blame them for your fuck up on top of it all too.

 

[Correll]

Your denial is retarded. And a lie.

I am not using anybody for anything. I am merely stating facts that you cannot attempt to deny. So how is stating facts retarded and a lie. please explain.

You have repeatedly used the victims of the war in Iraq, as props for your various Appeals to Emotion.


Your denial of this fact is a lie and retarded.

 

[Correll]

So, you're dropping that nonsense about pretending to not know the meaning of the word "unmitigated"?

No. I know exactly what unmitigated means. There is nothing that mitigates the deaths of all the Iraqis you decided to kill by sending them your Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe nation building project in a Muslim land on March 19 2003 as soon as the UN inspectors could get out.

And recently you said this:
...

The removal of Saddam is a mitigating factor. It is insane of you to deny this.