Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

The removal of Saddam is a mitigating factor.

How does the removal of Saddam make the deaths of half a million Iraqis less severe. There is nothing more severe than causing unnecessary premature deaths of half a million people by the use of military aggression labeled Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe where no threat existed.

SH’s removal does not mitigate the fact that you killed far more people by removing him than you prevented from being killed had you let the inspectors continue disarming him peacefully to remove WMD that he may have illegally possessed.

Its as if you get drunk and drive your car head on into another and kill the father of five kids and want to say the kids went to college on the insurance money they got because you killed their dad, so that’s an after the fact mitigating factor. It just doesn’t work that way. It is no less severe to the survivors no matter how much ‘good’ comes out of a disaster when the deaths are absolutely unnecessary and never can be justified.

 

[Correll]

The removal of Saddam is a mitigating factor.

How does the removal of Saddam make the deaths of half a million Iraqis less severe. ....

It doesn't. That is not what "mitigates" means.


Look it up. Then come back and admit that you made an argument about semantics and you were wrong.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That is not what "mitigates" means.

mit·i·gate - verb - make less severe, serious, or painful. "he wanted to mitigate misery in the world”

How does the removal of Saddam make the deaths of half a million Iraqis less severe.

So answer the question.

 

[Correll]

That is not what "mitigates" means.

mit·i·gate - verb - make less severe, serious, or painful. "he wanted to mitigate misery in the world”

How does the removal of Saddam make the deaths of half a million Iraqis less severe.

So answer the question.

The claim was made that the WAR, was an "unmitigated disaster".

You have tried repeatedly to move the goal posts to just discuss war victims.


That is you being dishonest.


THe removal of SADDAM, was a benefit of the war.

D'uh.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The claim was made that the WAR, was an "unmitigated disaster".

And it was.

 

[Correll]

The claim was made that the WAR, was an "unmitigated disaster".

And it was.

So, you do not consider removing Saddam to be a good thing?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You have tried repeatedly to move the goal posts to just discuss war victims.

Your war of aggression to nation build a democracy in Iraq unnecessarily created half a million victims who are dead. That was an unmitigated disaster. Killing people so their survivors can vote is an atrocity. You don’t like unmitigated disaster - try atrocity.

 

[Correll]

You have tried repeatedly to move the goal posts to just discuss war victims.

Your war of aggression to nation build a democracy in Iraq unnecessarily created half a million victims who are dead. That was an unmitigated disaster. Killing people so their survivors can vote is an atrocity. You don’t like unmitigated disaster - try atrocity.

Do you not think that removing Saddam was a good thing?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So, you do not consider removing Saddam to be a good thing?

No it is great that SH is dead and gone. But it doesn’t mean you should have killed half a million Iraqis to make it happen.

That was a decision to be made by Iraqis - not you. You had no reason to be involved other than the WMD issue and that issue was being resolved peacefully and without death.

The fact that you reserve the right to kill Iraqis just to give them a government to your specifications proves you are a racist. There is no doubt.

SH was evil but you committed more evil to remove him because it was not necessary at the time.

 

[Correll]

So, you do not consider removing Saddam to be a good thing?

No it is great that SH is dead and gone. But it doesn’t mean you should have killed half a million Iraqis to make it happen.

That was a decision to be made by Iraqis - not you. You had no reason to be involved other than the WMD issue and that issue was being resolved peacefully and without death.

The fact that you reserve the right to kill Iraqis just to give them a government to your specifications proves you are a racist. There is no doubt.

SH was evil but you committed more evil to remove him because it was not necessary at the time.

Not, no one else seems to be in this thread. Your constant Appeals to Emotion are wasted. Adn boring.

"Mitigating" is not a question of whether it is worth it or not. It is whether or not there is ANTHIING good about an event.


The claim was that the war was an "unmitigated disaster.


By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.


That you can't admit that, is pathetic of you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.

You are stupid. Mitigating is not the word you are looking for. SH’s removal does not reduce the deadness of the half a million Iraqis who are dead because you wanted to bomb them into a democracy acceptable to white American Christians. Nothing can mitigate death caused by needless, reckless military aggression. Nothing.

What is an Iraqi life worth to you? You would not be whining for credit for taking SH out if you placed the same value on them as you do on yours.


I will never agree that the US military should take one single life in order to nation build any nation that is no threat to us in any way. If I were to agree with you that killing half a million innocent Iraqis produced an end that justified the means then I would be a liar, a racist and a fascist so I will not go there.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Mitigating" is not a question of whether it is worth it or not. It is whether or not there is ANTHIING good about an event.

Where did you get that definition? Here is the real definition:

*Mitigate is defined as to make something less severe, less harsh or less painful.


You have not explained how to make half a million dead Iraqis less severe, less harsh or less painful?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Adn boring.

Running out new ways to lie and avoid facts are ya?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.

Getting rid of Saddam at the cost of half a million dead Iraqis is not great. It is not sone thing you should be proud of because there were no deaths being expected by continued peaceful inspections and the completion of the verification that Iraq was disarmed.

You cannot morally chose the path that kills half a million Iraqis when there was an alternative path to the same end that kills zero and then turn around and claim the deadly path was the right way to go because SH ended up dead too.

Well you can because you place no value on Iraqi life when you make the decision from thousands of miles away in safety that it’s ok to kill innocent civilians to give the survivors a chance to vote. You are so sick you cannot see how amoral you are.

 

[Correll]

By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.

You are stupid. Mitigating is not the word you are looking for. SH’s removal does not reduce the deadness of the half a million Iraqis who are dead because you wanted to bomb them into a democracy acceptable to white American Christians. Nothing can mitigate death caused by needless, reckless military aggression. Nothing.

What is an Iraqi life worth to you? You would not be whining for credit for taking SH out if you placed the same value on them as you do on yours.


I will never agree that the US military should take one single life in order to nation build any nation that is no threat to us in any way. If I were to agree with you that killing half a million innocent Iraqis produced an end that justified the means then I would be a liar, a racist and a fascist so I will not go there.

Your stonewalling is beyond belief.


Any rational, or even any person pretending to be a rational person makes a policy argument by comparing benefits to costs.


It would be completely valid of you to state that, in your judgement, that the human cost of the war far out weighted the mitigating factor of getting rid of Saddam.


That you cannot do that, proves, once again, that there is something wrong with you.


Moving on, do you believe that Iranians are adult humans responsible for their actions?

 

[Correll]

By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.

Getting rid of Saddam at the cost of half a million dead Iraqis is not great. It is not sone thing you should be proud of because there were no deaths being expected by continued peaceful inspections and the completion of the verification that Iraq was disarmed.

You cannot morally chose the path that kills half a million Iraqis when there was an alternative path to the same end that kills zero and then turn around and claim the deadly path was the right way to go because SH ended up dead too.

Well you can because you place no value on Iraqi life when you make the decision from thousands of miles away in safety that it’s ok to kill innocent civilians to give the survivors a chance to vote. You are so sick you cannot see how amoral you are.

Do you have memory problems? Cause we have well established that we disagree on the viability of those alternative paths.


Especially when you again assume the worst possible motive for our disagreement and assign it to me.


What would have happened, if I had spent all this time assuming that you were a Ba'athist fascist yourself, and was anti-war because you personally idolized Saddam Hussain?


Would that have been fun for you? Would that have been a productive discussion? Or would that have been me, being a complete and total asshole?

 

[surada]

That is not what "mitigates" means.

mit·i·gate - verb - make less severe, serious, or painful. "he wanted to mitigate misery in the world”

How does the removal of Saddam make the deaths of half a million Iraqis less severe.

So answer the question.

The claim was made that the WAR, was an "unmitigated disaster".

You have tried repeatedly to move the goal posts to just discuss war victims.


That is you being dishonest.


THe removal of SADDAM, was a benefit of the war.

D'uh.

Nothing good came out of killing Saddam. Remember there were 50 Christian churches in Baghdad before Bush's invasion.

 

[surada]

By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.

Getting rid of Saddam at the cost of half a million dead Iraqis is not great. It is not sone thing you should be proud of because there were no deaths being expected by continued peaceful inspections and the completion of the verification that Iraq was disarmed.

You cannot morally chose the path that kills half a million Iraqis when there was an alternative path to the same end that kills zero and then turn around and claim the deadly path was the right way to go because SH ended up dead too.

Well you can because you place no value on Iraqi life when you make the decision from thousands of miles away in safety that it’s ok to kill innocent civilians to give the survivors a chance to vote. You are so sick you cannot see how amoral you are.

Do you have memory problems? Cause we have well established that we disagree on the viability of those alternative paths.


Especially when you again assume the worst possible motive for our disagreement and assign it to me.


What would have happened, if I had spent all this time assuming that you were a Ba'athist fascist yourself, and was anti-war because you personally idolized Saddam Hussain?


Would that have been fun for you? Would that have been a productive discussion? Or would that have been me, being a complete and total asshole?

Too many Americans are ignorant and arrogant.. They think they have the right to remake another country in their own image.

 

[Correll]

By admitting that getting rid of Saddam was "great" you have admitted that there was at least one "mitigating" result.

Getting rid of Saddam at the cost of half a million dead Iraqis is not great. It is not sone thing you should be proud of because there were no deaths being expected by continued peaceful inspections and the completion of the verification that Iraq was disarmed.

You cannot morally chose the path that kills half a million Iraqis when there was an alternative path to the same end that kills zero and then turn around and claim the deadly path was the right way to go because SH ended up dead too.

Well you can because you place no value on Iraqi life when you make the decision from thousands of miles away in safety that it’s ok to kill innocent civilians to give the survivors a chance to vote. You are so sick you cannot see how amoral you are.

Do you have memory problems? Cause we have well established that we disagree on the viability of those alternative paths.


Especially when you again assume the worst possible motive for our disagreement and assign it to me.


What would have happened, if I had spent all this time assuming that you were a Ba'athist fascist yourself, and was anti-war because you personally idolized Saddam Hussain?


Would that have been fun for you? Would that have been a productive discussion? Or would that have been me, being a complete and total asshole?

Too many Americans are ignorant and arrogant.. They think they have the right to remake another country in their own image.

What speak as though I am claiming the right to do that, without cause. That seems dishonest of you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What would have happened, if I had spent all this time assuming that you were a Ba'athist fascist yourself, and was anti-war because you personally idolized Saddam Hussain?

Nothing different because you are required in this discussion to make arguments based on facts and only facts. It is not a fact that I am anti-war according to my previous statements that I fully supported W’s war against the Taliban and still do. I have also told you I supported W’s father’s war and very broad contributing coalition to oust SH from Kuwait in 1990. SH was an aggressor nation at that time (same as Germany 1839) having crossed internationally recognized borders with its army.

So what would have happened if you lied about me as you are fond of doing? You’d be a liar. That’s all. That is you being normal. Nothing is changed.