Spineless Trump seeks good relationship with Putin's Russia after Russia votes at UN against Israel

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16343913

there was a whole list of reasons for the war, to say otherwise is a lie.

There can be a long list of reasons for launching an offensive war. Reasons in themselves do not make a war just.

One reason could be to raise the price of oil or lower the price of oil, does that justify starting a war.

So, you're dropping your pretense that you hadn't heard of those other reasons?

Good.

I actually don't recall anyone pushing that reason, that you mention.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16344022

You claim that since Bush was pressured into making an offer, that that proves that the condition of the offer was thus the ONLY reason, is not true.

I'm not claiming Bush was pressured or not pressured. I don't know and you don't know. I'm claiming as fact that Bush made the offer.

All that matters is what we know. We know that he was willing to do so but for one reason and one reason only. Verified absence of WMD was the only condition that mattered to Bush and he made that his public position.

The inspectors were not in Iraq at Bush's request and agreement with 1441 to look for anything else that Saddam was in violation of international law. WMD was the ONLY reason they were there.

I do consider this as a possibility. If Bush was pressured to make that offer and he had succumbed to some kind of political pressure, there was a hell of a lot more political pressure, specifically at home (70% of Americans wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time.) why not succumb to that or say we have to invade because Hussein is an asshole or something like that.

Just warmongers like you wanted to cut the inspectors off and now try to assuage your
conscience by pretending based upon nothing that there were other reasons




Correll, post: 16344266

So, you're dropping your pretense that you hadn't heard of those other reasons?

It's not a pretense. You cannot name one other Justifiable reason that Bush had to begin killing and maiming people in Iraq on March 20, 2003. There was no threat from Iraq without WMD. His conventional army was a junkyard of equipment.

Hitler had reasons to invade Poland. Doesn't make it justified.

t's a dangerous world with warmongers like you in it. Kill people on a whim you would do.

Let's hope Trump at least meant it when he declared Bush lied us into war. So he won't have people like you driving him into make another huge mistake like Bush did.


Why can't you name a just reason for bombing invading and killing Iraqis?

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16344022

You claim that since Bush was pressured into making an offer, that that proves that the condition of the offer was thus the ONLY reason, is not true.

I'm not claiming Bush was pressured or not pressured. I don't know and you don't know. I'm claiming as fact that Bush made the offer.

All that matters is what we know. We know that he was willing to do so but for one reason and one reason only. Verified absence of WMD was the only condition that mattered to Bush and he made that his public position.

The inspectors were not in Iraq at Bush's request and agreement with 1441 to look for anything else that Saddam was in violation of international law. WMD was the ONLY reason they were there.

I do consider this as a possibility. If Bush was pressured to make that offer and he had succumbed to some kind of political pressure, there was a hell of a lot more political pressure, specifically at home (70% of Americans wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time.

Just warmongers like you wanted to cut the inspectors off and now try to assuage your
conscience by pretending based upon nothing that there were other reasons




Correll, post: 16344266

So, you're dropping your pretense that you hadn't heard of those other reasons?

It's not a pretense. You cannot name one other Justifiable reason that Bush had to begin killing and maiming people in Iraq on March 20, 2003. There was no threat from Iraq without WMD. His conventional army was a junkyard of equipment.

Hitler had reasons to invade Poland. Doesn't make it justified.

t's a dangerous world with warmongers like you in it. Kill people on a whim you would do.

Let's hope Trump at least meant it when he declared Bush lied us into war. So he won't have people like you driving him into make another huge mistake like Bush did.


Why can't you name a just reason for bombing invading and killing Iraqis?

1. No, I'm saying BUsh was pressured into making that offer. THat he made such an offer does not mean that the condition of that offer was the only reason for the invasion. The fact of the offer does not support your conclusion.


2. Ahh, and the bullshit begins. Your disagreement with the reasons, does not mean they did not exist. That is a form of a lie, for you cannot be stupid enough to believe that your disagreement means that those reasons ceased to exist.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

THat he made such an offer does not mean that the condition of that offer was the only reason for the invasion.

Why not? Explain why not?

Bush saw no reason to invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein in power other than the THREAT of WMD in the hands of a madman after the tragedy of 9/11.

If any other reason justified starting a war and ground invasion of a Muslim nation, thus killing and maiming thousands of human beings, Bush did not mention it when he offered to leave Hussein in power through his draft resolution.

Who the hell pressured Bush to draft a resolution that would allow Hussein to stay in power. Why would Bush agree to such a deal if there were many justified reasons to take down Saddam's regime.

 

[Correll]

THat he made such an offer does not mean that the condition of that offer was the only reason for the invasion.

Why not? Explain why not?

Bush saw no reason to invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein in power other than the THREAT of WMD in the hands of a madman after the tragedy of 9/11.

If any other reason justified starting a war and ground invasion of a Muslim nation, thus killing and maiming thousands of human beings, Bush did not mention it when he offered to leave Hussein in power through his draft resolution.

Who the hell pressured Bush to draft a resolution that would allow Hussein to stay in power. Why would Bush agree to such a deal if there were many justified reasons to take down Saddam's regime.

YOu are jumping to the unsupported conclusion that the condition mentioned in the offer is the only reason.

The Bush did not mention other reasons in the offer, proves that he did not mention other reasons.

It does not support your assumption that that means there were no other reasons.

Who put pressure on Bush to make the offer? Seriously? LOL!!! Everyone who wasn't supporting the war!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

1. No, I'm saying BUsh was pressured into making that offer. THat he made such an offer does not mean that the condition of that offer was the only reason for the invasion. The fact of the offer does not support your conclusion.

The condition of that offer means there was at that point in time no other JUSTIFIABLE threat to our national security that Bush could even consider as a basis for starting a war. The offer left no other threats on the table because it meant that ten days from the offer Saddam Hussein could remain in power.

As President sworn to protect the US from enemies abroad, Bush could not make the offer knowing that another serious or dangerous threat would remain if war was called off and Saddam Hussein remained in power.

So tell about the other threats that you think existed at the time that would justify killing Muslims on their on sovereign land.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16345092

It does not support your assumption that that means there were no other reasons.

It's not an assumption. There was no other threat that could justify starting a war.

Why don't you tell me exactly what you think was the threat to our national security besides WMD if Saddam Hussein were left to rule in Iraq.

Just say it?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump
Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We.....

10:02 AM - 7 Jan 2017

So Republicans are stupid if they oppose a warm relationship with Putin after Putin voted yes at the UN to condemn Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands.

Why is Trump being an asshole against his own Party and the intelligence community?

Will spineless Trumpunist Party members face this illogical unpatriotic "Make Russia Great Again" moron of a president elect head on?

According to Trump the Great Marl Levin is stupid. That is hilarious.

/---- Geee all it took to kick Hildabeast to the curb was Spineless Trump. BWHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA

 

[Correll]

1. No, I'm saying BUsh was pressured into making that offer. THat he made such an offer does not mean that the condition of that offer was the only reason for the invasion. The fact of the offer does not support your conclusion.

The condition of that offer means there was at that point in time no other JUSTIFIABLE threat to our national security that Bush could even consider as a basis for starting a war. The offer left no other threats on the table because it meant that ten days from the offer Saddam Hussein could remain in power.

This assumes,

1. THe offer was made in good faith, by Bush.

2. That Bush was competent, and would not leave additional threats out.

3. That Bush did not assume that Saddam would fail.

4. That Bush did not feel that he had no choice but to make the offer ever though it was a bad one.

5. ect.

All of those assumptions, makes your confidence in your conclusion, foolishness.

As President sworn to protect the US from enemies abroad, Bush could not make the offer knowing that another serious or dangerous threat would remain if war was called off and Saddam Hussein remained in power.

So tell about the other threats that you think existed at the time that would justify killing Muslims on their on sovereign land.

Why? So you can waste my time telling me that you disagree with them? The reasons were part of the historical debate. Your disagreement with them is irrelevant.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345092

It does not support your assumption that that means there were no other reasons.

It's not an assumption. There was no other threat that could justify starting a war.

Why don't you tell me exactly what you think was the threat to our national security besides WMD if Saddam Hussein were left to rule in Iraq.

Just say it?

It is your assumption based on your opinion.

That you disagree with the many reasons discussed at that time is irrelevant. YOu don't get to dismiss other people's reasons, just because you don't agree with them.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16345092,

Who put pressure on Bush to make the offer? Seriously? LOL!!! Everyone who wasn't supporting the war!

You are an idiot. Those who opposed Bush starting the war wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time and some wanted him to give them as much time as they needed. Bush offered ten days in an attempt to get UNSC authorization to go to war. He was rejected.

If Bush had any other threat that would have justified the war he would have and should have acted on it. It was his sworn duty to defend our national security. He had no other threat he could call on.

That's why he told you and me that he had no doubt based on intelligence that Saddam's regime was hiding WMD from inspectors on March 17, 2003. That's how he justified forcing the inspectors out and started a war.

You blame our intelligence service for that huge error. If something else justified starting a war with a country that was cooperating with UN inspectors, the intelligence on WMD would not have mattered at all.

Bush got a lot of Americans killed searching for WMD for almost two years and found nothing. What the hell did that matter if there were other threats that justified the war?

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345092,

Who put pressure on Bush to make the offer? Seriously? LOL!!! Everyone who wasn't supporting the war!

You are an idiot. Those who opposed Bush starting the war wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time and some wanted him to give them as much time as they needed. Bush offered ten days in an attempt to get UNSC authorization to go to war. He was rejected.

If Bush had any other threat that would have justified the war he would have and should have acted on it. It was his sworn duty to defend our national security. He had no other threat he could call on.

You are an idiot. SHould have? Well, la dee da, then perhaps Bush did a bad job according to you. WHich proves NOTHING.

That's why he told you and me that he had no doubt based on intelligence that Saddam's regime was hiding WMD from inspectors on March 17, 2003. That's how he justified forcing the inspectors out and started a war.

So, now you are reading minds, though the Mists of Time. COol.

Or, perhaps, he was caught up in a rush to judgement and missed or ignored evidence or qualifying statements that should have given him doubts. Or the intelligence was written by incompetent or corrupt agents who were telling the President what he wanted to hear. Or something else.


YOur certainty about what went on inside someone else's head behind closed doors years ago, is more a reflection on your intellectual arrogance then anything else.

You blame our intelligence service for that huge error. If something else justified starting a war with a country that was cooperating with UN inspectors, the intelligence on WMD would not have mattered at all.

Actually, I blame Saddam for being stupider than anyone could have reasonably imagined he would be. To have destroyed his wmd's without documenting it for verification purposes AND then acting evasive as though he still had them.

IMO, this points to the need for a President to remember that "Absence of Evidence" is not "Evidence of Absence", and other limitations of soft evidence and/or analysis.

Bush got a lot of Americans killed searching for WMD for almost two years and found nothing. What the hell did that matter if there were other threats that justified the war?

Because it was thus still a Just War. Those deaths were thus, not for nothing. The interests of the nation were still being served, potentially at least.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16345246

Why? So you can waste my time telling me that you disagree with them? The reasons were part of the historical debate. Your disagreement with them is irrelevant.

No because I want to see how stupid you look when you mention something specific from what you call the historical debate that is not anything close to being a threat to our national security.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345246

Why? So you can waste my time telling me that you disagree with them? The reasons were part of the historical debate. Your disagreement with them is irrelevant.

No because I want to see how stupid you look when you mention something specific from what you call the historical debate that is not anything close to being a threat to our national security.

Not a threat to our national security ACCORDING TO YOU.

I've seen this with libs a lot. THeir minds are so closed that they actually believe that if they disagree with something, that that is the end of it.

To the point, they then pretend it does not exist.

NOt sure if they are insane, or just insanely dishonest.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16345261

. YOu don't get to dismiss other people's reasons, just because you don't agree with them.

Rupert Murdoch was all in for invading Iraq. His 'reason' was it would give the entire world the equivalent of a huge tax break. He predicted toppling Hussein would reduce the price of a barrel of oil from $40 to $20.

I dismiss it because because that reason is not only immoral it is not a response to a military threat.

How do I know your reasons are not just as absurd? You won't say what they are.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345261

. YOu don't get to dismiss other people's reasons, just because you don't agree with them.

Rupert Murdoch was all in for invading Iraq. His 'reason' was it would give the entire world the equivalent of a huge tax break. He predicted toppling Hussein would reduce the price of a barrel of oil from $40 to $20.

I dismiss it because because that reason is not only immoral it is not a response to a military threat.

How do I know your reasons are not just as absurd? You won't say what they are.

"my reasons"?

If I'm discussion my personal opinion, I always try to clarify that.

IN this thread, with regard to the "reasons" that we were discussion, they are not "my" reasons, but the reasons that were thrown around and back and forth for MONTHS of discussion and debate.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

"Correll, post: 16345466

Not a threat to our national security ACCORDING TO YOU.

You won't tell me what you think we're actionable threats to our nation in March 2003. So how can it be according to be.

I must assume you have nothing because you are much too reluctant to type a single one of them out.

I have no idea what you took from the historical debate to be considered a serious threat to our national security that Bush had no choice but to got to war only as a last resort from a man who said he wanted peace more than anything else.

.
By TERENCE NEILAN
NOVEMBER 20, 2002


President Bush said in Prague today that the United States was willing to lead a ``coalition of the willing'' against Iraq if President Saddam Hussein chose not to disarm, but he repeated previous assertions that war was his last resort.

``If the collective will of the world is strong, we can achieve disarmament peacefully,'' Mr. Bush said at a news conference with President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic.

But if Mr. Hussein does not disarm, Mr. Bush said on the eve of a NATO summit meeting in the Czech capital, ``the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him.''

``By remaining strong and united and tough, we'll prevail,'' he said, but added: ``War is my last choice, my last option. I hope we can do this peacefully.''

``But one thing is certain,'' he said, ``he'll be disarmed, one way or the other, in the name of peace.''

Bush Says U.S. Ready to Disarm Iraq, but Calls War Last Resort


So, warmonger, disarmed of what? If it was not about WMD.

What was the other threats to our security.

 

[Correll]

"Correll, post: 16345466

Not a threat to our national security ACCORDING TO YOU.

You won't tell me what you think we're actionable threats to our nation in March 2003. So how can it be according to be.

I must assume you have nothing because you are much too reluctant to type a single one of them out.

I have no idea what you took from the historical debate to be considered a serious threat to our national that Bush had no choice but to got to war only as a last resort from a man who said he wanted peace more than anything else.

.
By TERENCE NEILAN
NOVEMBER 20, 2002


President Bush said in Prague today that the United States was willing to lead a ``coalition of the willing'' against Iraq if President Saddam Hussein chose not to disarm, but he repeated previous assertions that war was his last resort.

``If the collective will of the world is strong, we can achieve disarmament peacefully,'' Mr. Bush said at a news conference with President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic.

But if Mr. Hussein does not disarm, Mr. Bush said on the eve of a NATO summit meeting in the Czech capital, ``the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him.''

``By remaining strong and united and tough, we'll prevail,'' he said, but added: ``War is my last choice, my last option. I hope we can do this peacefully.''

``But one thing is certain,'' he said, ``he'll be disarmed, one way or the other, in the name of peace.''

Bush Says U.S. Ready to Disarm Iraq, but Calls War Last Resort


So, warmonger, disarmed of what? If it was not about WMD.

What was the other threats to our security.

NO, you assume that because you want to.


I assume that everything you write here is a rationalization of your intent to put everything on your partisan and ideological enemies.

I take that back. It is not an assumption. It is a reasonable conclusion from your ravings.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16345557

IN this thread, with regard to the "reasons" that we were discussion, they are not "my" reasons, but the reasons that were thrown around and back and forth for MONTHS of discussion and debate.

So either all reasons 'thrown around' were serious threats to our national security or you know of a few that truly were. How am I supposed to know which one you think rose to the level of a threat to our national security unless you tell me?

You don't have any do you?

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345557

IN this thread, with regard to the "reasons" that we were discussion, they are not "my" reasons, but the reasons that were thrown around and back and forth for MONTHS of discussion and debate.

So either all reasons 'thrown around' were serious threats to our national security or you know of a few that truly were. How am I supposed to know which one you think rose to the level of a threat to our national security unless you tell me?

You don't have any do you?

It doesn't matter which ones I think rose to a level to justify war. They were all part of the nation wide debate.

There were other reasons. YOu know that.

Yet you repeatedly claimed otherwise on the flimsiest of rationalizations.

And your obsession with one particular reason, for one particular small time period, is just an excuse to smear your partisan and ideological enemies.