Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

i celebrated nothing.

Sure you did. You are as proud as a peacock to announce that killing civilians worked. You announced with no remorse that SH is gone and that is great and now the Iraqis have their very calm and peaceful democracy where all sects are doing so well. Tell me you aren’t happy about you Neocon Project’s success.

 

[Correll]

i celebrated nothing.

Sure you did. You are as proud as a peacock to announce that killing civilians worked. You announced with no remorse that SH is gone and that is great and now the Iraqis have their very calm abd peaceful democracy where all sects are doing so well. Tell me you aren’t happy about you Neocon Project’s success.

The vast majority of what you said there is not true. YOu are either lying or delusional.

Which is it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

o, you said it could not be done

you are a liar.

This is what I wrote: I

You were a Dumbass for thinking back then you can kill innocent people to force them into a societal system of your choosing.

It’s ‘thinking you can kill innocent Iraqis” that you are struggling with.

You apparently have no concept that “thinking” you can or should kill innocent Iraqis who are no threat is morally reprehensible and a sign of your depravity, let alone supporting actually doing it.

But now knowing half a million souls perished in your 2093 project for Iraq and all you care about is making a lot of noise about how great it is that you killed them.

 

[Correll]

o, you said it could not be done

you are a liar.

This is what I wrote: I

You were a Dumbass for thinking back then you can kill innocent people to force them into a societal system of your choosing.

It’s ‘thinking you can kill innocent Iraqis” that you are struggling with.

You apparently have no concept that “thinking” you can or should kill innocent Iraqis who are no threat is morally reprehensible and a sign of your depravity, let alone supporting actually doing it.

But now knowing half a million souls perished in your 2093 project for Iraq and all you care about is making a lot of noise about how great it is that you killed them.

War is a terrible thing to only be entered into with Just Cause.


That you are being hysterical about the inevitable loss of civilian life, is just you being hysterical.


Your assumptions about my views on it, are hysterical. The way you judge me based on your assumptions is you being an ass.


That I don't rave on and on about shit everyone knows, does not indicate lack of caring.

Indeed, that I do not use their deaths for pathetic "points" in a online debate, shows more respect for their deaths than using them for such pathetic "points".

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The vast majority of what you said there is not true.

So you are ashamed that your nation building project killed so many Iraqis and you now agree with me that W should have never started Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE on March 19, 2003 because it ain’t right to kill innocent people who are no threat in order to convert their society into a functioning democracy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

War is a terrible thing to only be entered into with Just Cause.

There was no just cause. NATION BUILDING is not a just cause to START a war by Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe.

You cannot and have not made a case for a just cause to start the war in Iraq that killed half a million innocent civilians.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That I don't rave on and on about shit everyone knows, does not indicate lack of caring.

You have given no indication that you know that it is immoral to start killing innocent civilians who are no threat to the peace and security of the region or the world.

 

[Correll]

The vast majority of what you said there is not true.

So you are ashamed that your nation building project killed so many Iraqis and you now agree with me that W should have never started Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE on March 19, 2003 because it ain’t right to kill innocent people who are no threat in order to convert their society into a functioning democracy.

I don't know which is more pathetic, the way that you cannot ask a question without stuffing the sentence full of begging the question partisan pap,

or the way you ALWAYS immediately answer you own questions, in the most childish, "you're a blood thirsty poopy head" way imaginable.


I challenge you to ask a serious question, and make it a real question, without that pathetic shit.

 

[Correll]

War is a terrible thing to only be entered into with Just Cause.

There was no just cause. NATION BUILDING is not a just cause to START a war by Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe.

You cannot and have not made a case for a just cause to start the war in Iraq that killed half a million innocent civilians.

I never claimed nation building as Just Cause. Your hysteria, whether real or pretend, seems to interfere with your ability to follow simple....reasoning.



Nation Building to create an alternative model, as a counter to Islamic Fundamentalism, in the contest of ideas, was a GOAL that I found convincing.


The Just Cause, we discussed for weeks. For you to "forget" all that I said about that, and misrepresent it now, is disturbing.


Are you really so close minded that you are literally erasing concepts you disagree with from your mind? Or are you just being disingenuous?


Sometimes I get the feel, that you are not actually engaged in debate, but just using this as an opportunity to spam negative sounding jabs, to just put it out there, to create a general... illusion of questionable doubt, with regard to some silly ideas.

 

[Correll]

That I don't rave on and on about shit everyone knows, does not indicate lack of caring.

You have given no indication that you know that it is immoral to start killing innocent civilians who are no threat to the peace and security of the region or the world.

Correct. I have also given no indication that I believe that cannibalism or demonic summoning is immoral.

And barring serious questions about such subjects, I won't be insulting your intelligence by doing so.


If you want to pretend that such behavior, indicates a support of demonic summoning, and start building a world view and making accusations based on that,


that in on you. It has nothing to do with me. It reflects on the type of person you are, and how much you think you need to engage in hysterical and dishonest games to defend your ideas.


To be clear, I find your behavior in this regard, proof that on some level, you know that your position on this issue, is completely weak and thus you cannot defend it honestly.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don't know which is more pathetic

I challenge you to ask a serious question,

Why do you never answer a serious question with a serious answer.Am you ever do is complain about how the question is asked?

You can start here: Are you ashamed that your nation building project got so many Iraqis killed? Do you now agree with me that W should have never started Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE on March 19, 2003 b cause of all the death and destruction that resulted from invading a nation that was no threat to the region or the world at the time?

 

[surada]

War is a terrible thing to only be entered into with Just Cause.

There was no just cause. NATION BUILDING is not a just cause to START a war by Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe.

You cannot and have not made a case for a just cause to start the war in Iraq that killed half a million innocent civilians.

I never claimed nation building as Just Cause. Your hysteria, whether real or pretend, seems to interfere with your ability to follow simple....reasoning.



Nation Building to create an alternative model, as a counter to Islamic Fundamentalism, in the contest of ideas, was a GOAL that I found convincing.


The Just Cause, we discussed for weeks. For you to "forget" all that I said about that, and misrepresent it now, is disturbing.


Are you really so close minded that you are literally erasing concepts you disagree with from your mind? Or are you just being disingenuous?


Sometimes I get the feel, that you are not actually engaged in debate, but just using this as an opportunity to spam negative sounding jabs, to just put it out there, to create a general... illusion of questionable doubt, with regard to some silly ideas.

Just Cause? Are you completely nuts? When you attack someone's religion, heritage and traditions you get backlash.. They become more fundamentalist ... more zealous.

How stupid..The people who opposed the war.. oilmen, Arabs, expats, historians and diplomats knew better..

 

[Correll]

I don't know which is more pathetic

I challenge you to ask a serious question,

Why do you never answer a serious question with a serious answer.Am you ever do is complain about how the question is asked?

You can start here: Are you ashamed that your nation building project got so many Iraqis killed? Do you now agree with me that W should have never started Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE on March 19, 2003 b cause of all the death and destruction that resulted from invading a nation that was no threat to the region or the world at the time?

Because questions that are stuffed full of Appeals to Emotion or Begging the question fallacies, are not really questions.


They are accusations just disguised as "questions".


For example what you are really saying above is not a request for an answer but spam designed to put out in the blogosphere, the idea that your enemies "killed a lot of people" and used overwhelming force, and "death and destruction" and "no threat".


It is a very dishonest and sleazy propaganda technique.

 

[Correll]

War is a terrible thing to only be entered into with Just Cause.

There was no just cause. NATION BUILDING is not a just cause to START a war by Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe.

You cannot and have not made a case for a just cause to start the war in Iraq that killed half a million innocent civilians.

I never claimed nation building as Just Cause. Your hysteria, whether real or pretend, seems to interfere with your ability to follow simple....reasoning.



Nation Building to create an alternative model, as a counter to Islamic Fundamentalism, in the contest of ideas, was a GOAL that I found convincing.


The Just Cause, we discussed for weeks. For you to "forget" all that I said about that, and misrepresent it now, is disturbing.


Are you really so close minded that you are literally erasing concepts you disagree with from your mind? Or are you just being disingenuous?


Sometimes I get the feel, that you are not actually engaged in debate, but just using this as an opportunity to spam negative sounding jabs, to just put it out there, to create a general... illusion of questionable doubt, with regard to some silly ideas.

Just Cause? Are you completely nuts? When you attack someone's religion, heritage and traditions you get backlash.. They become more fundamentalist ... more zealous.

How stupid..The people who opposed the war.. oilmen, Arabs, expats, historians and diplomats knew better..

We did not do that. The government we set up, did not do that. Are you insane or just a dishonest asshole?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Just Cause, we discussed for weeks

Saddam was evil is not a just cause.

Your SADDAM was “poking the Bear” falsehood would be a just cause if it were not a lie. You chose to lie to make up a just cause. That means you don’t have one. NATION BUILDING was all you had left after advising that WMD was not it.

it is a fact that lying against the facts does not count in a serious discussion. Saddam was evil and did evil things in the past prior to 1441. But there was no active evil after 1441 which means no death and destruction was to be prevented by invasion. NO JUST CAUSE because of that little detail. The invasion started a new round of death and destruction supposedly because of bad intelligence about WMD on our part. We did not have bad intelligence that SH was an evil rotten dictator. You are confused and a liar when you justify the invasion based on SH’s evil past.

And getting rid of SH because he was evil had to be followed up with nation building or a worse evil would have filled the vacuum. As we learned with the ISIS and former SH Baathists later attempts to fill it.

You have no “just cause” for removing SH by starting a major war on MARCH 19 2003 when evil SH was not behaving in any evil way ir doing any evil that would justify starting a war to remove him and destroy his army and police that were keeping order in Iraq at that time.

You disordered Iraq not SH after 1441. THAT MAKES YOU EVIL.

 

[HaShev]

Only in the beginning because I believed that Hussein had WMD.

That said, I would have preferred President Bush kept the focus on killing OBL...

He didn't need to, with the British operation who got there first (early Oct), they took out his weapons cache and all the upper military personnel, maybe even much of his cash on hand, sending him injured into Pakistan and totally impotent, as he lost control of his power and became insignificant.
Media finally admitted this was the
single most game changer in
the war against terror-YOU'RE WELCOME.

In regards to taking out Saddam, his son would have been 2x worse then his father and a future calamity we could not risk allowing.
If you could take out Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazadar wannabes, you do it every time, history teaches us the outcome when you don't.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because questions that are stuffed full of Appeals to Emotion or Begging the question fallacies, are not really questions.


They are accusations just disguised as "questions".


For example what you are really saying above is not a request for an answer but spam designed to put out in the blogosphere, the idea that your enemies "killed a lot of people" and used overwhelming force, and "death and destruction" and "no threat".


It is a very dishonest and sleazy propaganda technique.

You cannot directly answer this question can you?

Are you ashamed that your nation building project got so many Iraqis killed? Do you now agree with me that W should have never started Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE on March 19, 2003 b cause of all the death and destruction that resulted from invading a nation that was no threat to the region or the world at the time?

What are you afraid if? You already answered it indirectly But you just can’t come out and say directly that you agree with me. I understand that..

 

[Correll]

Because questions that are stuffed full of Appeals to Emotion or Begging the question fallacies, are not really questions.


They are accusations just disguised as "questions".


For example what you are really saying above is not a request for an answer but spam designed to put out in the blogosphere, the idea that your enemies "killed a lot of people" and used overwhelming force, and "death and destruction" and "no threat".


It is a very dishonest and sleazy propaganda technique.

You cannot directly answer this question can you?

Are you ashamed that your nation building project got so many Iraqis killed? Do you now agree with me that W should have never started Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE on March 19, 2003 b cause of all the death and destruction that resulted from invading a nation that was no threat to the region or the world at the time?

What are you afraid if? You already answered it indirectly But yuh just can’t come out abd say directly that you agree with me. I understand that..

I clearly explained why I don't consider it a question.

I have challenged you to actually ask a question, without all the bullshit.


DId you forget that? Or do you realize that you JUST CAN'T DO IT?

Or, are you refusing, because all you really want to do, is spam lefty talking points?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that.


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

I clearly explained why I don't consider it a question.

You are a warmonger who refuses to accept facts. Your explanations don’t serve much purpose except to expose the multitude of critical facts you are too fearful to deal with directly. I get the truth out of you primarily by your non-answers and ignorance and non-acceptance of facts.


Did you write this back in May?

“A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that“

What is “an argument for war”?

 

[Correll]

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that.


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

I clearly explained why I don't consider it a question.

You are a warmonger who refuses to accept facts. Your explanations don’t serve much purpose except to expose the multitude of critical facts you are too fearful to deal with directly. I get the truth out of you primarily by your non-answers and ignorance and non-acceptance of facts.


Did you write this back in May?

“A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that“

What is “an argument for war”?

YOu just cut nearly everything we were discussing, and then ignored the one little bit you did not cut.

You cut your own words, flushed them down the toilet.


If you have no respect for your own words, why should I?