Why Bush Should be Impeached

[titan]

Originally posted by Skeptic

The innocent Japanese people, who died when Truman dropped the bomb, died unnecessarily. Truman should have been removed from office for this reason. But we were in a necessary war against a country that was a real, significant and imminent threat to America. This makes a difference.

Jackson should have been removed from office for this. But our culture was different then.

They should have been removed from office. But our culture was different then.



Nice response but it doesn't answer the question. Who was more deserving of impeachment Truman or Bush? Your statement that World War II was necessary (IYO) and the Iraq War was not is noted. However, Truman purposefully ordered the killing of hundreds of thousand of civilians. Bush has done nothing even remotely approaching this. As for your comments on Jackson et al, maybe the culture is different NOW than what you would like. Maybe that is your real problem.

titan

[theo_victis]

quote from skeptic:

But we were in a necessary war against a country that was a real, significant and imminent threat to America. This makes a difference.

so i am guessing skeptic that you would have liked to have wait for iraq to have killed thousands of americans before attacking them?

your sure mister patriotic......pbth!


So i have a question.... were terrorists before 9/11 or the first wave of terrorist attacks an immenant threat? (when i mean by first wave i am reffering to all the embasy bombings and the first world trade center bombing)

I mean according to your logic they havent done anything to us..... but if Clinton had a brain he would have wiped them out far before the first wave of attacks. And look it... because of his mistake thousands of americans are dead in america.....(9/11)

Iraq had the potential for this... there was a good case for the wmd. Lets say they did have wmd and we let them go. What would you say then after they had nuked america? Plus just because they didnt have wmd in their possesion doesnt mean they could have gotten some (by means of creating or purchasing) and used them against america. THEY WERE A THREAT STUPID!


you liberals never think ahead do you? its just the here and now.....

potential threats will become a threat tomorrow and should be removed today before they attack...

its just like cancer people... when a doctor tells a patient you have cancer in its early almost benign state does the doctor tell the patient we will wait until it grows and starts killing you before we remove it?

NO!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

I don't understand why Truman should have been removed from office. By my moral standards, I don't think killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is a right way to end wars. If a majority of people disagree with me, this does not mean that my moral standards are wrong and theirs right.

Isn't this a simple question of Truman's moral standards being different from yours? I'm sure Truman's moral standards were different than mine regarding this issue. Regardless of anyone else's moral standards, it is my belief that Truman was wrong to drop the bomb on those two cities.

I think it's just a culture question. Obviously you're not in tune with the current culture. How a culture or government responds to an event depends on the collective moral standards of the majority or those in power, respectively. A majority of people can hold a particular set of moral standards, but that does not mean I need to agree with them. It just so happens that my moral standards are much more common than you think.

The moral standards of most fundies are fear-based, fairy-tale-based, and superstition-based. I don't see that as a rational criteria for basing one's moral standards.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by titan

Nice response but it doesn't answer the question. Who was more deserving of impeachment Truman or Bush? I'm not interested in getting into a "who's more deserving" game. I said I could not think of any President more deserving of impeachment than Bush. This does not mean that if I spent a lot of time studying all U.S. Presidents that I would not change my mind and think of others who might be more deserving. Perhaps, if I thought about it a good long time, I might feel other Presidents were more deserving than Bush. The fact remains that Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies failed to produce any clear hard empirical pre-invasion evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat, yet invaded anyway, unnecessarily and immorally killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process. That may not be a good enough reason for impeachment according to the right-wing controlled Congress, but it's a good enough reason for me.

However, Truman purposefully ordered the killing of hundreds of thousand of civilians. I think this was unnecessary and immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

Bush has done nothing even remotely approaching this. Bush purposefully ordered the killing of tens of thousands of civilians. I think this was unnecessary and immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

Do the ends justify the means according to your moral standards?

As for your comments on Jackson et al, maybe the culture is different NOW than what you would like. Maybe that is your real problem. There are lots of things I don't like about our culture today. I'm sure you feel the same way about other aspects of our culture. You might be opposed to legalized abortion. I'm glad abortion is legal.

[theo_victis]

The moral standards of most fundies are fear-based, fairy-tale-based, and superstition-based. I don't see that as a rational criteria for basing one's moral standards.

So i suppose loving your neighbor as your self, serving others without looking for reward, being honest and trustworthy, and being a positive rolemodel in peoples lives is driven from fear, fairytaleish, and superstitious?

these things are the difference in morality between christian and nonchristian.

[theo_victis]

Bush purposefully ordered the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.

i must have missed that one....

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by theo_victis

so i am guessing skeptic that you would have liked to have wait for iraq to have killed thousands of americans before attacking them? No. If there had been clear hard pre-war evidence that Iraq had posed a real, significant and imminent threat to America or other countries, then I would have supported firm and swift military action enough to stop such a confirmed threat.


So i have a question.... were terrorists before 9/11 or the first wave of terrorist attacks an imminent threat? (when i mean by first wave i am reffering to all the embasy bombings and the first world trade center bombing). We now know that Al Qaeda posed a significant and imminent threat to America. Steps were being taken to deal with this threat. I supported going after them in Afghanistan. I did not support the unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq.

I mean according to your logic they havent done anything to us... That's not my logic about al-Qaeda. That is my logic regarding Iraq. Iraq did nothing to warrant the killing of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

... but if Clinton had a brain he would have wiped them out far before the first wave of attacks. Clinton made some attempts and failed. Bush too has made attempts and failed. If Clinton had invaded Afghanistan and taken out the Taliban and destroyed al-Qaeda training camps after the first attacks against U.S. embassy and the first failed world trade center bombing, I don't think the U.S. Congress, the American people, or the world would have supported such a military response. I don't even think most people in the U.S. military thought that al-Qaeda posed such a grave and imminent threat sufficient to justify an all-out invasion of Afghanistan.

And look it... because of his mistake thousands of americans are dead in america.....(9/11) Bush and his Administration share the blame for the failures to prevent 9/11.

In hindsight, Clinton did what he did, given the intelligence regarding the level of threat. He could have done more, if he had known more.

In hindsight, Bush did what he could to ignore the LACK of clear hard pre-invasion evidence regarding the threat Iraq posed. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and had no significant ties with al-Qaeda. This is why Bush's actions were reckless and wrong, while Clinton's actions were measured and largely appropriate. However, I did not agree with all of Clinton's actions.

Iraq had the potential for this... there was a good case for the wmd. A careful analysis of the available pre-invasion HARD evidence (as apposed to hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations) shows the case for WMD was NOT good.

Read THIS (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=614354#post614354).

Lets say they did have wmd and we let them go. What would you say then after they had nuked america? That would have been a major failure on the part of U.S. military and intelligence. But is was ALSO a major failure on the part of U.S. military and intelligence when they told Bush it was a "slam dunk." This "slam dunk" resulted in the unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. However, I still think it is possible Bush knew Iraq did not pose a serious threat before he ordered his bloody invasion.

Plus just because they didnt have wmd in their possesion doesnt mean they could have gotten some (by means of creating or purchasing) and used them against america. THEY WERE A THREAT STUPID! When a careful analysis of intelligence shows that Iraq DID NOT have WMD and were years away from being able to acquire WMD (assuming Saddam was no longer boxed in and monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community - which was unlikely any time soon), then logic dictates that Iraq WAS NOT A THREAT! To suggest otherwise is irrational (i.e. "STUPID").

Pre-emptive preventive wars against nations, in the absence of clear hard pre-war evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat is immoral!


you liberals never think ahead do you? its just the here and now..... I think it is VERY wise to think ahead. But it is NOT wise to base one's actions on hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations, when such actions could result in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children!

potential threats will become a threat tomorrow and should be removed today before they attack... Real potential threats SHOULD be dealt with today! But invading countries who may pose a potential future threat, killing thousands of innocent people in the process, is immoral! We had plenty of time to explore other ways to deal with any potential threat Saddam may have posed in the future. Since we had plenty of time, the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003 was unnecessary and immoral! This cannot be repeated enough times. There are some pretty thick skulls in America.

its just like cancer people... when a doctor tells a patient you have cancer in its early almost benign state does the doctor tell the patient we will wait until it grows and starts killing you before we remove it?

NO! If I were a doctor and one method used to remove the benign tumor resulted in the collateral deaths of many other people, I would suggest to my patient that we should explore less radical alternative methods to remove the benign tumor. There was no urgent need to kill tens of thousands of innocent people, in March 2003, to remove the benign tumor that was Saddam. We had time to explore better and more ethical methods.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by theo_victis

So i suppose loving your neighbor as your self, serving others without looking for reward, being honest and trustworthy, and being a positive rolemodel in peoples lives is driven from fear, fairytaleish, and superstitious? Loving your neighbor as your self, serving others without looking for reward, being honest and trustworthy, and being a positive role model in people's lives pre-dates the Bible.

these things are the difference in morality between christian and nonchristian. Wrong.

The difference between Christian and non-Christian morality has to do with the belief that morals come from God, are absolute, and, if one doesn't believe in a certain way and obey the dogmatic commandments of the Bible, one will suffer eternally. Hence the fear, fairy tales and superstitions.

"The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." -- T. H. Huxley

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by theo_victis

i must have missed that one.... Truman knew what the consequences of his actions would be. He knew many thousands of innocent people would die as a result of dropping the bomb.

Bush knew what the consequences of his actions would be. He knew many thousands of innocent people would die as a result of invading Iraq with the full force of the U.S. military.

Therefore, if Truman purposefully gave his orders, knowing that innocent people would be killed, Bush too purposefully gave his orders, knowing that innocent people would be killed.

[titan]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I'm not interested in getting into a "who's more deserving" game. I said I could not think of any President more deserving of impeachment than Bush. This does not mean that if I spent a lot of time studying all U.S. Presidents that I would not change my mind and think of others who might be more deserving. Perhaps, if I thought about it a good long time, I might feel other Presidents were more deserving than Bush.

So, you didn't know about Hiroshima and Nagaski until I mentioned it? LOL The point is that Bush's acts are not unusual but quite normative among American presidents. The hyperbole and vitriole you spew identifies you as a propagandist rather than an honest debater.

Originally posted by Skeptic

I think this was unnecessary and immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

Bush purposefully ordered the killing of tens of thousands of civilians. I think this was unnecessary and immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

Do the ends justify the means according to your moral standards?


Depends on what you mean by "ends" and whether you are referring to apriori or aposteriori justification. If "ends" means absolutely everything that happened due to the employing of the "means" that is a reasonable way to judge after the fact. If "ends" means goals before application of the "means" then no. One needs more than that. Sometimes one cannot fully justify a decision one way or another, but one still has to decide. That was Truman's predicament and Bush's.

Swatting Al Qaeda alone will not protect us from the next 9/11. I do not think waiting around quietly for it is reasonable. Consider the following. What if some terrorist group launches a WMD against New York? If we don't know who gave the WMDs to them, what do you think our response will be? Are you naive enough to think there will be no response? Avoiding such a scenario is of paramount importance for us as well as for the Middle East itself. Bush thinks adventures in Iraq is the way to go about this. He may be wrong. What's your solution?

Oops, I let the "Bush purposefully ordered ..." comment slip by. Do you honestly see no difference between the following orders.
1) Secure the hospital. Shoot back if fired upon. OR
2) Blow up the hospital. Kill everyone.
Hint 1) Bush, 2) Truman.

Originally posted by Skeptic

There are lots of things I don't like about our culture today. I'm sure you feel the same way about other aspects of our culture. You might be opposed to legalized abortion. I'm glad abortion is legal.

True.
I just want to know why yesterday's "culture" justifies (or excuses (ameliorates?)) Jackson, but today's "culture" does not justify or excuse Bush.

titan

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by titan

So, you didn't know about Hiroshima and Nagaski until I mentioned it? LOL The point is that Bush's acts are not unusual but quite normative among American presidents. The hyperbole and vitriole you spew identifies you as a propagandist rather than an honest debater. Even though hundred thousand+ lives were unnecessarily and immorally lost when Truman dropped the bomb on those two cities, I still think that Bush's invasion of Iraq is more deserving of impeachment than Truman's actions. When Truman dropped the bombs, America was at war with country that posed a real, significant and ongoing threat. When Bush invaded Iraq, America was NOT threatened by Iraq and the available hard evidence did not demonstrate that Iraq had any WMD or active WMD programs. Saddam had been boxed in and monitored 24/7 by U.S. and international forces. UN inspectors were doing their job and were finding nothing. Therefore, even though far more innocent lives were lost as a result of Truman's decision, the U.S. was at war. When Bush invaded Iraq, we were NOT at war. Bush STARTED a war with a country that did not pose a real, significant and imminent threat. Truman did not start the war with Japan, even though his method of ending the war was immoral. Bush actually started a war that did not need to be started. Because of this, I think that Bush's actions were more deserving of impeachment than Truman's.

And don't give me any crap about Bush's invasion of Iraq being a part of a larger "war on terrorism." That's just right-wing propaganda and nonsense.

Depends on what you mean by "ends" and whether you are referring to apriori or aposteriori justification. Bush had no clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Iraq posed a threat. Therefore, even if tomorrow Iraq became the most peace-loving and democratic country the world has ever known, this would not justify the unnecessary slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Sometimes one cannot fully justify a decision one way or another, but one still has to decide. That was Truman's predicament and Bush's. Truman had clear hard empirical evidence that Japan was a real, significant and ongoing threat. Bush had NO such evidence with regard to Iraq.

Swatting Al Qaeda alone will not protect us from the next 9/11. Neither will invading countries that do not pose a threat. Doing so will only increase the likelihood of another attack by increasing anti-American hatred and terrorist recruitment.

I do not think waiting around quietly for it is reasonable. Neither do I. Invading Iraq was the WRONG thing to do if our goal was to prevent the next 9/11.

Consider the following. What if some terrorist group launches a WMD against New York? If we don't know who gave the WMDs to them, what do you think our response will be? Are you naive enough to think there will be no response? What would be your response, if we did not know who gave them the WMD? Would you invade the next country suspected of having WMD, even though you have not established the source of the WMD?

Avoiding such a scenario is of paramount importance for us as well as for the Middle East itself. Bush thinks adventures in Iraq is the way to go about this. He may be wrong. I don't believe Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was planned by his neocon Pentagon buddies years ago, was designed to be part of a strategy to prevent the next terrorist attack against the U.S. I think it is likely Bush and the neocons invaded Iraq for right-wing political, economic and long-term strategic reasons, not because Iraq posed any real threat.

What's your solution? For starters, get rid of Bush and his clan.

Oops, I let the "Bush purposefully ordered ..." comment slip by. Do you honestly see no difference between the following orders.
1) Secure the hospital. Shoot back if fired upon. OR
2) Blow up the hospital. Kill everyone.
Hint 1) Bush, 2) Truman. Here's how I see it:

1) Bush - Get rid of Saddam (even though he was not a threat) and secure the oil fields. Shoot back if fired upon, even if tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children die in the process.

2) Truman - Secure America by sending a message to Japan that "resistance is futile" by killing over one hundred thousands innocent people in big bright flash!


True.
I just want to know why yesterday's "culture" justifies (or excuses (ameliorates?)) Jackson, but today's "culture" does not justify or excuse Bush. Unfortunately, much of today's culture DOES excuse Bush for his atrocity in Iraq. I don't. There was also opposition to Jackson's actions within that culture.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Skeptic

By my moral standards, I don't think killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is a right way to end wars. If a majority of people disagree with me, this does not mean that my moral standards are wrong and theirs right.
Are you asserting an absolute moral principle? :confused:

I'm sure Truman's moral standards were different than mine regarding this issue. Regardless of anyone else's moral standards, it is my belief that Truman was wrong to drop the bomb on those two cities.
Belief or moral standard? Which is it? Whose moral standard prevails? Yours or Truman's? :confused:

How a culture or government responds to an event depends on the collective moral standards of the majority or those in power, respectively. A majority of people can hold a particular set of moral standards, but that does not mean I need to agree with them. It just so happens that my moral standards are much more common than you think.
You have already argued that agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Are you now asserting that a majority opinion establishes a moral standard? :confused:

The moral standards of most fundies are fear-based, fairy-tale-based, and superstition-based. I don't see that as a rational criteria for basing one's moral standards.
Irrelevant. You have not stated any rational criteria as a basis for your moral standards. Do you have any or are your moral standards mere personal beliefs? :confused:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Are you asserting an absolute moral principle? :confused: Just because I think some moral principles are wrong, while others are right, does not mean the I think my principles are absolute. Moral relativists do not think that everything is always equally right and wrong.

Belief or moral standard? Which is it? Moral standards are beliefs.

Whose moral standard prevails? Yours or Truman's? :confused: It depends on what you mean by "prevail." A variety of factors determines whether a particular set of moral standards becomes dominant (prevails) in a society. Such factors are cultural, psychological and historical. What determines whether a particular moral standard is right or wrong is the individual. It just so happens that, because most individuals share a fairly common human experience, most people share similar moral standards.

Who is right? Me or Truman? I think I'm right. Truman thought he was right. Who was "ultimately" right? Whose moral principles were "absolutely" right? Moral principles can be right or wrong without being ultimately or absolutely so.

You have already argued that agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Are you now asserting that a majority opinion establishes a moral standard? :confused: A majority opinion often establishes the laws of the land, not necessarily right or wrong. I think some laws are wrong.

Irrelevant. You have not stated any rational criteria as a basis for your moral standards. Do you have any or are your moral standards mere personal beliefs? :confused: When it comes to moral standards, people often disagree what constitutes as supporting rational criteria. However, if you walked up to a person who said their morals derived from Santa Claus, you might think that was an irrational basis for their moral beliefs. My moral standards are my personal beliefs (shared by millions of others), and they are not necessarily based on criteria that are derived from pure logic or science. Yet, they are not based on fear, fairy tales and superstitions, as are yours, or on Santa Claus, which is equally nonsensical/irrational.

[theo_victis]

skeptic.... who cares if you kill people they are just people! Come on now grow up. It has been natures way far longer than any liberals or Christians idea of morality. Bush believes that all people should die. So stop caring so much about other peoples lives because you should worry about yourself. If Bush wants to kill everyone dont bother getting all upset... he isnt killing you is he? Quit complaining!!

I mean come on Bush can kill whoever he wants, what if he likes it? The world is all about Bush to Bush and the world is all about you to you and me to me isnt it?

Shouldnt bush be happy? Killing makes him happy!

Oh wait..... you claim that is wrong? You claim that Bush impeading on other peoples lives is evil and wrong?

But isnt that (according to you since morals arent absolute) relative to ones opinion? Maybe in Bush's opinion morals dont matter and that he (since he is president and all) should kill people if he wants! Why should there be justice done to him if he is guilt of murder as you claim?


I am sure every living human being knows that murder is wrong (except the clinically insane who DO NOT MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE). It is not an opinion it is a fact. That is why every culture has rules against this.

So you still think morals arent absolute? Of course you say! Then why would you get upset if someone came to your town and killed your family, friends, and your dog. Why would you seek justice? Maybe the murderer believed he was doing the right thing! Why would you be mad? There is no heaven or afterlife you claim, there is only one life to live and our happiness, even at the expense of others is ok then, right??

A sensible person would realize that morals are instilled values. A sensible person would realize they come only from God. A sensible person would realize that there is an afterlife and our moral decisions count for something in this life (however, not much, such as salvation).

You are not a sensible person if you continue to run circles around this morality issue.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Truman knew what the consequences of his actions would be. He knew many thousands of innocent people would die as a result of dropping the bomb.

He also knew that millions of lives would be saved by ending the war. I have no problem with Truman's decision to drop the bomb. The Japs had to be stopped and killing them is better than letting them kill us.



Bush knew what the consequences of his actions would be. He knew many thousands of innocent people would die as a result of invading Iraq with the full force of the U.S. military.

Bush hardly used the full force of the US military. We have a lot more nukes than Truman had, but we didn't drop a single one in Iraq. Your pompous political propaganda is transparent. You never seem to remember that Saddam had killed Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqi's. I guess it was OK for Saddam, after all, they were HIS people. And I'll remind you about the innocent Israeli's who were killed by suicide bombers paid for by Saddam. Do you have a problem with that, or is it OK for Saddam to murder Israeli's because they are Jews?



Therefore, if Truman purposefully gave his orders, knowing that innocent people would be killed, Bush too purposefully gave his orders, knowing that innocent people would be killed.

Bush gave Saddam a chance to step down from power, Saddam declined. Any loss of life in Iraq can be attributed to Saddam, who was a terrorist. If the UN and other European countries had not been illegally profiteering from the 'Oil for Food' program, Saddam would not have felt that he had allies who would protect him via the UN and might have co operated with the US. The UN is as much to blame for the deaths of your supposed thousands as Saddam is.

Bush did the right thing by removing Saddam, thank God George Bush is our President!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Just because I think some moral principles are wrong, while others are right, does not mean the I think my principles are absolute. Moral relativists do not think that everything is always equally right and wrong.
Moral relativists do not think. You're right about that one.:up:

Moral standards are beliefs.
Nonsense. :down:

It depends on what you mean by "prevail." A variety of factors determines whether a particular set of moral standards becomes dominant (prevails) in a society. Such factors are cultural, psychological and historical. What determines whether a particular moral standard is right or wrong is the individual. It just so happens that, because most individuals share a fairly common human experience, most people share similar moral standards.
:cow:

Who is right? Me or Truman? I think I'm right. Truman thought he was right. Who was "ultimately" right? Whose moral principles were "absolutely" right? Moral principles can be right or wrong without being ultimately or absolutely so.
:cow:

A majority opinion often establishes the laws of the land, not necessarily right or wrong. I think some laws are wrong.
Laws of the land = morals? :idea: Now, we're getting somewhere!

When it comes to moral standards, people often disagree what constitutes as supporting rational criteria. However, if you walked up to a person who said their morals derived from Santa Claus, you might think that was an irrational basis for their moral beliefs. My moral standards are my personal beliefs (shared by millions of others), and they are not necessarily based on criteria that are derived from pure logic or science. Yet, they are not based on fear, fairy tales and superstitions, as are yours, or on Santa Claus, which is equally nonsensical/irrational.
And then you spoil it all with your incessant broken-record screed. :(

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

And then you spoil it all with your incessant broken-record screed. :(


That is Skeptic's primary tactic, constant repetition of the same, lame propaganda. He still denies that Saddam was a terrorist or that the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. :down:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by BillyBob

That is Skeptic's primary tactic, constant repetition of the same, lame propaganda. He still denies that Saddam was a terrorist or that the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. :down:

:darwinsm: Silly me! I was hoping against hope that :mock::skeptic: was having an actual coherent thought.

My Bad. :(

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by theo_victis

skeptic.... who cares if you kill people they are just people! I care.

Come on now grow up. It has been natures way far longer than any liberals or Christians idea of morality. Long before the advent of Christianity, most people have always been concerned about UNNECESSARY and UNJUSTIFIED killing of people.

Bush believes that all people should die. I doubt that. He simply doesn't care about those innocent men, women and children who he knew would die as a result of his unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq.

So stop caring so much about other peoples lives because you should worry about yourself. Is that your policy?

If Bush wants to kill everyone dont bother getting all upset... he isnt killing you is he? Quit complaining!! Do you ever complain when you feel others have been unnecessarily and unjustly killed?

I mean come on Bush can kill whoever he wants, what if he likes it? I do not want to live in a world where anyone can kill anyone they like whenever they want to. A vast majority of the world's population agree with me. Why do they agree with me? It's NOT because unjustified killing is a "sin" or the moral principle opposed to unjust killing is some kind of "absolute" God-given principle. Most agree with me because most of us share the same general human genetics, brain, and experience which has taught us to believe that such killing is undesirable. There will always be individuals and groups who think it's ok to kill whoever gets in their way, but they will be subject to the laws of the land established by the majority and based on majority consensus.

The world is all about Bush to Bush and the world is all about you to you and me to me isnt it? Is that your policy? It's not mine.

Shouldnt bush be happy? Killing makes him happy! See above.

Oh wait..... you claim that is wrong? You claim that Bush impeading on other peoples lives is evil and wrong? I don't recall saying what Bush did was "evil." Evil is a mythological concept which I don't accept. However, according to my moral principles, what Bush did was wrong.

But isnt that (according to you since morals arent absolute) relative to ones opinion? Isn't your belief that the Bible is the "Word of God," and your belief that the moral precepts stated in the Bible are absolute, your opinion, which happens to be shared by many others who likewise believe in such fairy tales and superstitions?

Maybe in Bush's opinion morals dont matter and that he (since he is president and all) should kill people if he wants! Bush's moral principles are not mine. He and even a majority might think it was necessary and just to kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq. But I don't. Even if Bush was had a legal right (which is debatable) to unnecessarily kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, this does not make it morally right, according to me and many others.

Why should there be justice done to him if he is guilt of murder as you claim? The imposed legal consequences (justice) of one's illegal behavior is another issue. I don't believe people "deserve" to receive punishment as a result of their illegal or immoral behavior. However, I believe that society is justified in protecting people from harm. Therefore, when one breaks the law and/or perpetrates behavior that causes harm to others, societies have a right to take steps to modify the behavior of the perpetrator. Simply to punish someone because people (even a majority) feel they "deserve" it or because it might make victims feel better is, to me, wrong.

On occasion, certain kinds of punishment may serve as a deterrent. I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent. But impeachment of a President could serve as a deterrent to the unjust actions of future Presidents. In this sense, I believe Bush should receive punitive consequences for his unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

I am sure every living human being knows that murder is wrong (except the clinically insane who DO NOT MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE). It is not an opinion it is a fact. That is why every culture has rules against this. I generally agree. But the reason for this has nothing to do with the Bible or religion.

So you still think morals arent absolute? Correct.

Of course you say! Then why would you get upset if someone came to your town and killed your family, friends, and your dog. Because I love them and I would not like to see them harmed.

Iraq did nothing to harm America and there is no hard evidence they were even close to being an imminent threat. To kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children because Iraq may have posed a potential future threat (assuming the U.S. stopped keeping Saddam in a box and monitoring him 24/7) was immoral.

Why would you seek justice? See above.

Maybe the murderer believed he was doing the right thing! Why would you be mad? If, after later realizing that killing those who were killed was unnecessary and unjustified, the killer admitted that that his actions were wrong, then I would not be so mad. Efforts should be taken to prevent such unnecessary and just killings in the future. One way to do this would be to impeach Bush.

There is no heaven or afterlife you claim, ... Correct.

... there is only one life to live and our happiness, even at the expense of others is ok then, right?? That's not my belief.

A sensible person would realize that morals are instilled values. A sensible person would realize they come only from God. A sensible person would realize there is no rational reason to believe in the existence of God. A sensible person would realized that morals are instilled by our learning history and our shared human experience in the context of our culture.

A sensible person would realize that there is an afterlife ... A sensible person would realize that there is not one shred of empirical evidence for either the existence of the "soul" or the existence of an afterlife.

... and our moral decisions count for something in this life (however, not much, such as salvation). Not in any fairy-tail ultimate/absolutistic supernatural way.

You are not a sensible person if you continue to run circles around this morality issue. You are not a sensible person, as long as you persist in believing in Biblical fairy tales and superstitions. You might be sensible in other aspects of your life, but apparently not when it comes to this issue.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I do not want to live in a world where anyone can kill anyone they like whenever they want to.


Then you should take a stronger stand against Terrorism.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

He also knew that millions of lives would be saved by ending the war. I have no problem with Truman's decision to drop the bomb. The Japs had to be stopped and killing them is better than letting them kill us. I doubt that dropping the bomb saved more lives than were lost because of the bomb.

But did Iraq pose such a grave and imminent threat to America or other countries (while being boxed in and monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community) that killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children was necessary in order to prevent them from killing us?

NO!

Bush hardly used the full force of the US military. We have a lot more nukes than Truman had, but we didn't drop a single one in Iraq. You don't recall reading that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was one of the largest mobilizations of military force in U.S. history? Of course I'm not talking about nukes! :doh:

You never seem to remember that Saddam had killed Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqi's. You never seem to remember that Saddam's past atrocities did NOT justify the unnecessary slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003.

I guess it was OK for Saddam, after all, they were HIS people. It was not OK for Saddam to do what he did in the late 1980s. It was ALSO not OK for Bush to unnecessarily and immorally invade Iraq, which killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

And I'll remind you about the innocent Israeli's who were killed by suicide bombers paid for by Saddam. Those innocent Israelis would have been unjustly killed by those suicide bombers regardless of whether Saddam compensated the bomber's family. I doubt if Saddam's offer to pay money to those families did much to increase the suicide bombings. And I also very seriously doubt that Saddam's payment of money to the families of suicide bombers warranted the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children beginning in March 2003.

Bush gave Saddam a chance to step down from power, Saddam declined. Any loss of life in Iraq can be attributed to Saddam, who was a terrorist. If convicted criminal has been essentially living under house arrest and has been boxed in on all sides by police forces, and under 24/7 monitoring, and in this house were many other innocent people, would it be morally justified for the police to open fire on the house, killing many innocent people as a consequence, simply because the criminal (who was not currently a significant threat) refused to give himself up? NO!

There were other ways of dealing with Saddam, which could have spared the lives of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

If the UN and other European countries had not been illegally profiteering from the 'Oil for Food' program, Saddam would not have felt that he had allies who would protect him via the UN and might have co operated with the US. In March 2003, Saddam HAD been cooperating with UN weapons inspections. There was no clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Saddam posed a WMD threat. There was only hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations. Therefore, regardless of the UN 'Oil for Food' program, there was no moral justification for invading Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

The UN is as much to blame for the deaths of your supposed thousands as Saddam is. Nonsense!

"Supposed" thousands? A very conservative figure is over 15,000 innocent people killed. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Bush did the right thing by removing Saddam, thank God George Bush is our President! The issue is NOT whether Saddam needed to be removed! The issue is this: considering that there was no clear hard pre-war evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat, was it so urgently necessary to remove Saddam, in March 2003, in such a way that tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children HAD to be killed in a massive bloody invasion and subsequent occupation?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Then you should take a stronger stand against Terrorism. I believe I take a VERY strong stance against terrorism. But my stance does NOT include UNNECESSARILY and IMMORALLY killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children resulting from invasions of countries that are NOT a threat!!

I want to minimize real terrorist threats as much as anyone. But Bush's UNNECESSARY and IMMORAL invasion of Iraq has done JUST THE OPPOSITE!!

[Chileice]

You know, skeptic, I have to give you credit for perseverance. This thread is like the energizer bunny. One good thing about the reelction of Bush is that it gives you four more years to get him impeached, a quest you would have lost if he hadn't of won. But the big question is whether or not you will be able to keep it going after the 2008 elections. I think that should be your goal. Getting an ex-president impeached would be a real coup!!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Chileice

You know, skeptic, I have to give you credit for perseverance. This thread is like the energizer bunny. One good thing about the reelction of Bush is that it gives you four more years to get him impeached, a quest you would have lost if he hadn't of won. But the big question is whether or not you will be able to keep it going after the 2008 elections. I think that should be your goal. Getting an ex-president impeached would be a real coup!!
:darwinsm: YEAH! :mock::skeptic:

[HerodionRomulus]

Meanwhile,
Sudan, with confirmed longterm well established terrorist and al-queda connections
Sudan, which is, according to Powell last September is committing genocide,

Yet we do nothing but wring our hands and whine.

Why didn't we invade months ago when we realized genocide was underway?

Of course, western business interests control Sudanese oil.........

[hypermach]

terrorism is not a threat, btw social security is not in trouble

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Chileice

You know, skeptic, I have to give you credit for perseverance.

Yeah, too bad perseverence isn't the same thing as being correct.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by hypermach

terrorism is not a threat, btw social security is not in trouble

Michael Moore, is that you???

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Chileice

You know, skeptic, I have to give you credit for perseverance.

Originally posted by :BillyBob:


Yeah, too bad perseverence isn't the same thing as being correct.

Satan perseveres even though his end is defeat and death.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Satan perseveres even though his end is defeat and death. Amen, brother!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Satan perseveres even though his end is defeat and death. Spouting more fairy tales and superstitions, I see. :chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

Spouting more fairy tales and superstitions, I see. :chuckle:
:yawn:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:yawn: Give us ONE rational reason to believe that the supernatural entities, powers and events depicted in the Bible are not fairy tales and superstitions.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Give us ONE rational reason to believe that the supernatural entities, powers and events depicted in the Bible are not fairy tales and superstitions.

There is a God and He has revealed Himself to us in scripture. It is your characterization of same that has no rational basis.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

There is a God and He has revealed Himself to us in scripture. You answer a question about the basis for believing in Biblical fairy tales and superstitions with the SAME fairy tales and superstitions I asked about? :confused:

That's like the following:

Question: Why do you believe that the Bible is the World of God?

Answer: Because the Bible says so!


Can't you do better than that!! :doh:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

You answer a question about the basis for believing in Biblical fairy tales and superstitions with the SAME fairy tales and superstitions I asked about? :confused:

That's like the following:

Question: Why do you believe that the Bible is the World of God?

Answer: Because the Bible says so!


Can't you do better than that!! :doh:
:darwinsm: That wasn't what you asked. You're getting lost in your irrational rant again. :drum:

[Jackielabby]

Well, I believe in all the stories in Mother Goose so they must be true.

[Jackielabby]

Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

Secretary of State Colin Powell tours tsunami-stricken Banda Aceh and says, "I cannot begin to imagine the horror that went through the families and all of the people who heard this noise coming and then had their lives snuffed out by this wave."

Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a resolution that said: "The tsunami disaster constitutes a humanitarian tragedy of incredible proportions. ... My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy."

Last and hardly least, President Bush said: "The devastation in the region defies comprehension. ... Our flags will fly at half-staff to honor the victims of this disaster. We mourn especially the tens of thousands of children who are lost. We think of the tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters. We hold in our prayers all the people whose fate is still unknown."

In the abstract, the outpouring was appropriate. In context, the sympathy was a stench unto itself. Tens of thousands of people die by an act of nature and we say we cannot imagine the horror. We say it defies comprehension. We call it a catastrophe.

In Iraq we kill off perhaps tens of thousands of innocent civilians with our own hands, and we reject any attempt to comprehend what we have done. Countless Iraqi civilians are homeless. We call it liberation.

Bush quoted all the numbers for the tsunami: 150,000 lives lost, including 90,000 in Indonesia; perhaps 5 million homeless; millions vulnerable to disease. That stands in hypocritical contrast to the refusal to count the Iraqi civilians killed in his invasion over false claims of weapons of mass destruction and the crime-ridden chaos of an occupation that did not plan on an "insurgency."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Iraqi commander Tommy Franks both said, "We don't do body counts." Then, right in our faces, Powell said civilian casualty figures were "relatively low." Central Command spokesman Pete Mitchell hailed the invasion for its "unbelievably low amount of collateral damage and needless civilian death." Paul Bremer, Bush's former civilian reconstruction envoy, said, "We have freed people with one of the great military battles of all time, in a period of three weeks, with almost no collateral damage, very few civilian deaths, and they are now free."

The White House left the counting to journalists, doctors, think tanks and human rights groups. The numbers range from conservative guesses of 3,200 in the first few weeks of the war and occupation estimates ranging from 15,000 to 100,000. No matter if the number was 3,200 or 32,000, this atrocity of silence makes the torture in Abu Ghraib pale in comparison.

No flags have been flown at half-staff for Iraqi civilians. There have been no moments of silence in Congress. There have been no speeches by Bush mourning "the tens of thousands of children who are lost." Americans have not been asked to think of the "tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters."

In a nation that supposedly re-elected Bush on "moral values," there have been no prayers from the White House for "all the people whose fate is still unknown" in Iraq. This was a bipartisan hypocrisy. Even Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, fell into the trap of favoritism, fueling the appearance that this war was a religious crusade.

At the beginning of the war she said, "We pray for the swift and successful disarmament of Iraq with the least possible loss of life among our forces and the civilians of Iraq." But then she closed her message with: "May God bless our courageous forces and their brave families. May God bless the president of the United States. And may God bless America."

Not once did Pelosi or any American politician say in the last two years, "God bless Iraqi civilians" or any variant. Only one time has Bush uttered "God bless the people of Iraq," and that was in announcing Saddam Hussein's capture. Not once has he asked God's blessing for the courageous civilians and the families of Iraq who had no choice but to brave our bombs.

Let us do what we can for the victims of the tsunami. But no matter how much we weep for them, no matter what donations we spare, the offerings will not spare us from history's judgment, if not God's. Lugar said his heart goes out to the victims of the tsunami. No hearts have gone out to Iraqi civilians in this heartless cover-up.

Powell said of the tsunami, "The power of the wave to destroy bridges, to destroy factories, to destroy homes, to destroy crops, to destroy everything in its path is amazing." He said, "I have never seen anything like it in my experience."

Yes, he has. It was in Iraq. The tsunami was us.

Derrick Jackson is a columnist for The Boston Globe; jackson@globe.com.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COMMUNIST




Derrick Jackson is a communist for The Boston Globe


:think:

[Jackielabby]

:think:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Well, I believe in all the stories in Mother Goose so they must be true.
For an example, see below.
Posted by Jackielabby
Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

Secretary of State Colin Powell tours tsunami-stricken Banda Aceh and says, "I cannot begin to imagine the horror that went through the families and all of the people who heard this noise coming and then had their lives snuffed out by this wave."

Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a resolution that said: "The tsunami disaster constitutes a humanitarian tragedy of incredible proportions. ... My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy."

Last and hardly least, President Bush said: "The devastation in the region defies comprehension. ... Our flags will fly at half-staff to honor the victims of this disaster. We mourn especially the tens of thousands of children who are lost. We think of the tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters. We hold in our prayers all the people whose fate is still unknown."

In the abstract, the outpouring was appropriate. In context, the sympathy was a stench unto itself. Tens of thousands of people die by an act of nature and we say we cannot imagine the horror. We say it defies comprehension. We call it a catastrophe.

In Iraq we kill off perhaps tens of thousands of innocent civilians with our own hands, and we reject any attempt to comprehend what we have done. Countless Iraqi civilians are homeless. We call it liberation.

Bush quoted all the numbers for the tsunami: 150,000 lives lost, including 90,000 in Indonesia; perhaps 5 million homeless; millions vulnerable to disease. That stands in hypocritical contrast to the refusal to count the Iraqi civilians killed in his invasion over false claims of weapons of mass destruction and the crime-ridden chaos of an occupation that did not plan on an "insurgency."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Iraqi commander Tommy Franks both said, "We don't do body counts." Then, right in our faces, Powell said civilian casualty figures were "relatively low." Central Command spokesman Pete Mitchell hailed the invasion for its "unbelievably low amount of collateral damage and needless civilian death." Paul Bremer, Bush's former civilian reconstruction envoy, said, "We have freed people with one of the great military battles of all time, in a period of three weeks, with almost no collateral damage, very few civilian deaths, and they are now free."

The White House left the counting to journalists, doctors, think tanks and human rights groups. The numbers range from conservative guesses of 3,200 in the first few weeks of the war and occupation estimates ranging from 15,000 to 100,000. No matter if the number was 3,200 or 32,000, this atrocity of silence makes the torture in Abu Ghraib pale in comparison.

No flags have been flown at half-staff for Iraqi civilians. There have been no moments of silence in Congress. There have been no speeches by Bush mourning "the tens of thousands of children who are lost." Americans have not been asked to think of the "tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters."

In a nation that supposedly re-elected Bush on "moral values," there have been no prayers from the White House for "all the people whose fate is still unknown" in Iraq. This was a bipartisan hypocrisy. Even Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, fell into the trap of favoritism, fueling the appearance that this war was a religious crusade.

At the beginning of the war she said, "We pray for the swift and successful disarmament of Iraq with the least possible loss of life among our forces and the civilians of Iraq." But then she closed her message with: "May God bless our courageous forces and their brave families. May God bless the president of the United States. And may God bless America."

Not once did Pelosi or any American politician say in the last two years, "God bless Iraqi civilians" or any variant. Only one time has Bush uttered "God bless the people of Iraq," and that was in announcing Saddam Hussein's capture. Not once has he asked God's blessing for the courageous civilians and the families of Iraq who had no choice but to brave our bombs.

Let us do what we can for the victims of the tsunami. But no matter how much we weep for them, no matter what donations we spare, the offerings will not spare us from history's judgment, if not God's. Lugar said his heart goes out to the victims of the tsunami. No hearts have gone out to Iraqi civilians in this heartless cover-up.

Powell said of the tsunami, "The power of the wave to destroy bridges, to destroy factories, to destroy homes, to destroy crops, to destroy everything in its path is amazing." He said, "I have never seen anything like it in my experience."

Yes, he has. It was in Iraq. The tsunami was us.

Derrick Jackson is a columnist for The Boston Globe; jackson@globe.com. Good post! :thumb:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:Jackieblabby

Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COMMUNIST

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

Good post! :thumb:

:darwinsm:

[Jackielabby]

:rolleyes:

[Delmar]

.

[Skeptic]

Impeachable Offenses (http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/category/impeachable_offenses.html) ... :readthis:

All we need is one.

[BillyBob]

:yawn:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

Impeachable Offenses (http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/category/impeachable_offenses.html) ... :readthis:

All we need is one.

There's a Dummo nutburger in the House whose been trying to impeach George Bush since January 21, 2001. You ought to join his staff. Applications are available at Al Jazeera. :chuckle:

[aikido7]

Hold onto your porkpies, you sillies. A scandal is GUARANTEED during the next four years.

Today is 19 January, 2005.

Old Smirk and Swagger is not full of God, but of himself.

Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims
Denial is a torrent of water in Frank's brain.
A river runs through it.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::aikido:7

Hold onto your porkpies, you sillies. A scandal is GUARANTEED during the next four years.
:darwinsm: You gonna start one?

Today is 19 January, 2005.
Posted date suggests 20 January, but, hey, who's counting? :darwinsm:

Old Smirk and Swagger is not full of God, but of himself.
:yawn:

Denial is a torrent of water in Frank's brain.
A river runs through it.
:darwinsm: You never fail to amuse. :cloud9:

[On Fire]

aikido7, have you memorized this yet?

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

[Jackielabby]

These photos were taken by US military personnel in Fallujah on
November 19, 2004. They were taken in order to identify the dead, as
well as used to track where the bodies were later buried in Fallujah.<>

All of these photos taken by the military are of men. An interesting
thing, in light of the fact that the Iraqi Red Crescent has announced
that conservatively, 60% of the casualties in Fallujah, which are
expected to be well over 2,000 people, are women, children, elderly and
unarmed civilians.

I warn you in advance that these are extremely graphic images.

Click here
<http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32>;
to view them.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by JackieBlabby

These photos were taken by US military personnel in Fallujah on
November 19, 2004. They were taken in order to identify the dead, as
well as used to track where the bodies were later buried in Fallujah.<>

All of these photos taken by the military are of men. An interesting
thing, in light of the fact that the Iraqi Red Crescent has announced
that conservatively, 60% of the casualties in Fallujah, which are
expected to be well over 2,000 people, are women, children, elderly and
unarmed civilians.

I warn you in advance that these are extremely graphic images.

Click here
<http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32>;
to view them.

Are you suggesting that the United States military deliberately murders women, children, elderly and unarmed civilians?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Are you suggesting that the United States military deliberately murders women, children, elderly and unarmed civilians? Bush and his neocon Pentagon buddies knew that invading Iraq and bombing Fallujah would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. How could they not know? Therefore, since they also knew they had no clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real threat, they unnecessarily and deliberately murdered these people!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

Bush and his neocon Pentagon buddies knew that invading Iraq and bombing Fallujah would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. How could they not know? Therefore, since they also knew they had no clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real threat, they unnecessarily and deliberately murdered these people!
:yawn: More commie screed. :sleep:

[Jackielabby]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:yawn: More commie screed. :sleep:
Nazi!

[Jackielabby]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Are you suggesting that the United States military deliberately murders women, children, elderly and unarmed civilians?

Now, didn't this happen in Vietnam, too?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:JackieBlabby

Nazi!

Another commie screeder heard from. :vomit:

[Jackielabby]

Sieg Heil!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:JackieBlabby

Now, didn't this happen in Vietnam, too?

If you believe Sy Hersch, it did. He made a somewhat career lying in print.

[Jackielabby]

My Lai?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:JackieBlabby

Sieg Heil!

Have to do better than that, Adolph. :darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:JackieBlabby

My Lai?

My, my! Either a terrific guess or you're trying to go somewhere. Where might that be? :think:

[Skeptic]

My emphasis:

=========================
Published on Friday, May 6, 2005 by Knight Ridder
British Memo Indicates Bush Made Intelligence Fit Iraq Policy
by Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott

WASHINGTON -- A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The White House has repeatedly denied accusations made by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a presidentially appointed panel, that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.

The principal U.S. intelligence analysis, called a National Intelligence Estimate, wasn't completed until October 2002, well after the United States and United Kingdom had apparently decided military force should be used to overthrow Saddam's regime.

The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official, who didn't return calls for comment on Thursday.

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.

In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration foreign policy advisers were insisting that "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk."

But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."

Straw is quoted as having his doubts about the Iraqi threat.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," the memo reported he said.

Straw reportedly proposed that Saddam be given an ultimatum to readmit United Nations weapons inspectors, which could help justify the eventual use of force.

Powell in August 2002 persuaded Bush to make the case against Saddam at the United Nations and to push for renewed weapons inspections.

But there were deep divisions within the White House over that course of action. The British document says that the National Security Council, then led by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the U.N. route."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating a letter among fellow Democrats asking Bush for an explanation of the document's charges, an aide said.

Source (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0506-01.htm)

[Justin (Wiccan)]

My emphasis:

There is a tremendous difference between seeing a pattern where none is there, and deliberately "crafting" a pattern. Regardless, neither is an actionable offense according to the Constitutional definition of impeachment for a president. Even if the Bush administration had deliberately lied about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the military action was approved by Congress.

In short, Bush has not committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Which makes this post so much empty rhetoric on your part.

Justin

[On Fire]

There is a tremendous difference between seeing a pattern where none is there, and deliberately "crafting" a pattern. Regardless, neither is an actionable offense according to the Constitutional definition of impeachment for a president. Even if the Bush administration had deliberately lied about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the military action was approved by Congress.

In short, Bush has not committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Which makes this post so much empty rhetoric on your part.

Justin
Septic is a commie.

[Gerald]

Septic is a commie.And the only good commie is a dead commie.

So get to work, you. :sinapisN:

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Septic is a commie.

"Commie" or more properly Communist, is a word that reflects a very specific economic and political philosophy. It is not appropriate as a slur word unless the recipient is an actual Communist--such vague and useless insults undermine your credibility far more than they undermine Skeptic's political views.

Justin

[Gerald]

"Commie" or more properly Communist, is a word that reflects a very specific economic and political philosophy. It is not appropriate as a slur word unless the recipient is an actual Communist--such vague and useless insults undermine your credibility far more than they undermine Skeptic's political views.

Justin:: stage whisper ::

He's only interested in insulting Skeptic. He wouldn't pull him out of a burning building, or even pee on him if he was...(the pun is unavoidable)...on fire.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

:: stage whisper ::

He's only interested in insulting Skeptic.

Well, then, perhaps this is an opportunity for On Fire to either get serious about his arguments, or cease the "vain babblings." If Skeptic plans to keep continuing this pseudo-intellectual dissection of American Law, I plan on giving Skeptic a run for the money, and I don't need two-bit insults cluttering the playing field.

He wouldn't pull him out of a burning building, or even pee on him if he was...(the pun is unavoidable)...on fire.

:chuckle:

Justin

[On Fire]

mangez mes shorts

[Gerald]

mangez mes shorts
Gesundheit.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

mangez mes shorts

The word is "culottes." And the insults are still two-bit.

Love ya. Mean it. :D

Justin

[On Fire]

Fresh out of high class insults. Sorry.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Fresh out of high class insults. Sorry.

Ah, heck. I get days like that, and I hate it when that happens.

[Skeptic]

There is a tremendous difference between seeing a pattern where none is there, and deliberately "crafting" a pattern. Regardless, neither is an actionable offense according to the Constitutional definition of impeachment for a president. Even if the Bush administration had deliberately lied about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the military action was approved by Congress. Congress acted on intelligence provided to them by close buddies of Bush (i.e. the Pentagon and CIA). The evidence seems to indicate that Bush had a hand in trying to fix the facts (i.e. lie) regarding the alleged Iraqi threat. If Bush and company lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, they essentially lied to Congress. Is it constitutional for the President to lie to Congress?

In short, Bush has not committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Which makes this post so much empty rhetoric on your part.
Treason - the betrayal of a trust.

Lying America into war is not a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"? I can't think of too many crimes that are higher than this!! Bush clearly attempted to gain personally from his action of fixing the facts to support his policy. This was obviously part of his re-election strategy. I would say one could strongly argue that fabricating evidence for war for personal/political gain is a treasonous act.

How is lying under oath about personal conduct in a lawsuit, that has nothing to do with the affairs of government, a crime worthy of impeachment, while lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not? How many brave U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi men, women and children died as a result of Clinton's lie?

Bush gave a solemn oath to the American people:

====================
United States Constitution

Article 2, Section 1

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
======================

What does "faithfully" mean?

faithful

1 obsolete : full of faith
2 : steadfast in affection or allegiance : LOYAL
3 : firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty : CONSCIENTIOUS
4 : given with strong assurance : BINDING <faithful promise>
5 : true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original <a faithful copy>

Source (http://www.m-w.com/)

Fixing the facts amounts to subverting the Constitutional power of Congress to determine when, why and under what conditions the United States goes to war. If Bush misled or lied to Congress and the American people, especially about the reasons for starting a war that results in the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, along with over 1600 brave American soldiers, this is a violation of the Constitution!

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Congress acted on intelligence provided to them by close buddies of Bush (i.e. the Pentagon and CIA).

First and foremost, the CIA and Pentagon are not "close buddies" of the President, but his employees. They are both under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.

The evidence seems to indicate that Bush had a hand in trying to fix the facts (i.e. lie) regarding the alleged Iraqi threat.

The evidence is not conclusive.

Treason - the betrayal of a trust.

Wrong. Treason is very closely defined in American law.
* Levying war against the United States
* Adhering to the enemies of the United States
* Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution.

Lying America into war is not a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

The definition of "High crimes and misdemeanors" is defined solely by Congress. Not by you.

How is lying under oath about personal conduct in a lawsuit, that has nothing to do with the affairs of government, a crime worthy of impeachment, while lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not?

Ad hominem tu quoque.

Now, I can go through the rest of your post with a fine toothed comb like this if you like, or we can simply dispense with your argument. Your arguments have no legal leg to stand on.

Justin

[Frank Ernest]

My emphasis:

=========================
Published on Friday, May 6, 2005 by Knight Ridder
British Memo Indicates Bush Made Intelligence Fit Iraq Policy
by Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
:yawn:

[Skeptic]

First and foremost, the CIA and Pentagon are not "close buddies" of the President, but his employees. They are both under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch. Those who call the shots at the Pentagon and CIA essentially are the Pentagon and CIA.

Why did the Pentagon and CIA never provide any clear, hard, empirical evidence that Iraq was a WMD threat? Why did they claim that the hearsay, suspicions, lies, exaggerations and distortions of the alleged threat were verified, when they knew they were not?

The evidence is not conclusive. The evidence for Iraq's WMD threat was not conclusive either, but that didn't stop Bush for slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children anyway!

So, even though the evidence is not conclusive that Bush tried to fix the facts, why not do a bipartisan investigation into this?

Wrong. Treason is very closely defined in American law.
* Levying war against the United States
* Adhering to the enemies of the United States
* Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. I did not claim that the definition I used was how "treason" was defined in the Constitution. I simply meant to show that treason can be considered a betrayal of trust.

If a President violates his oath to "faithfully execute the office" by failing to be true to the facts (i.e. fixing the facts presented to Congress and the American people), why isn't this a violation of the Constitution? There may be no legal precedent for this, but who's to say this situation will not change?

The definition of "High crimes and misdemeanors" is defined solely by Congress. Not by you. So, Congress says that lying about personal matter (sex) under oath is a higher crime than lying to Congress and the American people about the alleged facts that led to war and the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children? If this is the case, this is a real problem!

Ad hominem tu quoque. I'm asking you a moral question, not a necessarily legal one. Even if it is true that lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not technically an impeachable offense (time will tell?), does it make sense to you personally that lying under oath about personal conduct in a lawsuit, that has nothing to do with the affairs of government, is a crime worthy of impeachment, while lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not? Would you like to the latter to become an impeachable offense?

Now, I can go through the rest of your post with a fine toothed comb like this if you like, or we can simply dispense with your argument. Your arguments have no legal leg to stand on. If Bush has not committed an impeachable offense (by fixing the facts and, hence, knowingly starting an unnecessary war) in the eyes of law makers or judges, they should be convinced otherwise. I think efforts should be made to change the official interpretation of the Constitution. The reasons for war should never be fixed to support one's policy decisions. The Constitution lists two reasons for war: (1) if we are invaded, and (2) if there is an imminent threat. There was no pre-war evidence of either. It's too bad that Bush and company didn't adhere to the spirit of the Constitution in this regard. Where does it read that we should start wars to prevent suspected (but not proven) threats from becoming imminent? I hope it never reads that!

If Bush did indeed fix the facts, what do you think should be the consequences for Bush and future Presidents who commit such acts?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Those who call the shots at the Pentagon and CIA essentially are the Pentagon and CIA.

Waitaminit. Skeptic, let's step back and look at something.

If I were to go through all the logic, all the argument, and demonstrate to you that you were wrong ("wrong" as in "erroneous, stating a position contrary to fact" not morally), would it change your views?

Justin

[Skeptic]

Waitaminit. Skeptic, let's step back and look at something.

If I were to go through all the logic, all the argument, and demonstrate to you that you were wrong ("wrong" as in "erroneous, stating a position contrary to fact" not morally), would it change your views? If I agreed with your reasoning and assessment of the facts, perhaps. And if I did the same to you, would you change yours?

But first, I'm curious as to how you would answer some of my questions, especially the ethical questions:

Why did the Pentagon and CIA never provide any clear, hard, empirical evidence that Iraq was a WMD threat?

Why did they claim that the hearsay, suspicions, lies, exaggerations and distortions of the alleged threat were verified, when they knew they were not?

The evidence for Iraq's WMD threat was not conclusive either, but that didn't stop Bush for slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children anyway! So, even though the evidence is not conclusive that Bush tried to fix the facts, why not do a bipartisan investigation into this?

If a President violates his oath to "faithfully execute the office" by failing to be true to the facts (i.e. fixing the facts presented to Congress and the American people), why isn't this a violation of the Constitution?

There may be no legal precedent for this, but who's to say this situation will not change?

So, Congress says that lying about personal matter (sex) under oath is a higher crime than lying to Congress and the American people about the alleged facts that led to war and the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

Even if it is true that lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not technically an impeachable offense (time will tell?), does it make sense to you personally that lying under oath about personal conduct in a lawsuit, that has nothing to do with the affairs of government, is a crime more worthy of impeachment than lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war?

Would you like to the latter to become an impeachable offense?

If Bush did indeed fix the facts, what do you think should be the consequences for Bush and future Presidents who commit such acts?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

If I agreed with your reasoning and assessment of the facts, perhaps. And if I did the same to you, would you change yours?

Of course. Which is awfully easy to say, but I do mean it. ;)

Why did the Pentagon and CIA never provide any clear, hard, empirical evidence that Iraq was a WMD threat?

Probably because it never was. My best surmise is that Bush felt the invasion of Iraq was necessary, took what evidence he had, and ran with it. It turns out that the evidence was wrong--I'll be the first to acknowledge that--and was far thinner than presented.

Why did they claim that the hearsay, suspicions, lies, exaggerations and distortions of the alleged threat were verified, when they knew they were not?

Skeptic, do you know how Intelligence works? No, that's not a sarcastic question--I'm quite serious. In short, Intelligence works much like Journalism--and if you have multiple Intel sources who lie, or are mistaken, or are mis-evaluated, then you have "verified Intelligence" that is wrong. However, a full discussion (which this subject badly needs) is beyond the scope of this thread.

The evidence for Iraq's WMD threat was not conclusive either, but that didn't stop Bush for slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children anyway!

First and foremost, your assertion that Bush "slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children" is rhetoric. Yes, civilian casualties happen in war. Yes, it is a horrid situation when they do. Our soldiers are trained to avoid civilian casualties as much as is possible, but sometimes it is not possible.

Second, I would love to see a realistic comparison of civilian casualties caused by Coalition soldiers vs. civilian casualties caused by the actions of Iraqi forces--either before Sadaam fell, or by the "insurgents."

So, even though the evidence is not conclusive that Bush tried to fix the facts, why not do a bipartisan investigation into this?

That's not my job to decide--that's up to Congress. For my part, while I also deplore the casualties, I feel that Sadaam needed to be removed. I personally feel that he deserves execution for his crimes ... but that will be decided by an Iraqi court.

If a President violates his oath to "faithfully execute the office" by failing to be true to the facts (i.e. fixing the facts presented to Congress and the American people), why isn't this a violation of the Constitution?

The Presidential Oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Notice a reference to lying? Neither do I. Telling the truth is not required in the oath, and frankly I've yet to read of the history of a president who didn't have to lie, at least once, during his term of office.

That may be difficult to accept, but look at it this way: nations do not have ethics--they have interests. There are times when other nations want to do something morally wrong to us, or to an innocent third party.

Did Bush lie? It's quite possible. And it's utterly beside the point.

So, Congress says that lying about personal matter (sex) under oath is a higher crime than lying to Congress and the American people about the alleged facts that led to war and the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

You know as well as I do that the Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with his affair with Lewinsky: it was about reducing the political power of a popular president. That's not an "ethical investigation," that's power politics.

As for Bush--even if he lied, Congress decides cases on an individual basis. There is no rule of "legal precedent" when it comes to Congressional hearings.

I didn't answer all the questions--many of them were based on whether or not Bush lied, and frankly as I said that's not the point. And Skeptic ... I don't mean that to sound derisive to your views. I do take your questions seriously, but the number of questions you asked would need a book to answer fully.

Justin

[zoo22]

Hi Justin, I've been following a lot of your comments in various threads ... I think you've got a lot of good things to say, and appreciate the way you communicate them. Wanted to pipe in here ...

My best surmise is that Bush felt the invasion of Iraq was necessary, took what evidence he had, and ran with it. It turns out that the evidence was wrong--I'll be the first to acknowledge that--and was far thinner than presented.

Heh ... Actually, there were er, a FEW people who acknowledged it BEFORE we went to war. It was investigated and disputed by countless experts. I know you weren't being literal, but I think it's important ... Bush's evidence had already been shown to be wrong before he "ran with it."

Skeptic, do you know how Intelligence works? No, that's not a sarcastic question--I'm quite serious. In short, Intelligence works much like Journalism--and if you have multiple Intel sources who lie, or are mistaken, or are mis-evaluated, then you have "verified Intelligence" that is wrong.

Yes, but 1) this is not simply a case of getting some bad info and making a mistake. This mistake has resulted in thousands upon thousands dead already, with no end in sight. And no WMD's in sight. Who's ultimately reponsible for it? Yes, it very well could have been that Bush was simply given bad info somewhere down the line... The President of the United States could have been given misinformation by HIS EXPERTS that led him to choose to send our troops to war. Bush needs to be held accountable. If in fact, it was a mistake, Bush is ultimately responsible. 2) This was misinformation that was widely and publicly refuted by countless experts in the field. It was actually systematically investigated BEFOREHAND by worldwide teams of experts. I can remember. The conclusion was that Bush's evidence (wherever it came from) was wrong. And THEN he still decided he "run with" his own misevidence.

However, a full discussion (which this subject badly needs) is beyond the scope of this thread.

True... But then again, it might be a little more sedate than this thread... ;)

First and foremost, your assertion that Bush "slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children" is rhetoric. Yes, civilian casualties happen in war. Yes, it is a horrid situation when they do. Our soldiers are trained to avoid civilian casualties as much as is possible, but sometimes it is not possible.

Yes, civilian casualties are an unfortunate part of war. This was certainly taken into consderation when war plans were being made. We all knew beforehand that there would be countless civilian deaths. These casualties are not a surprise to anyone. Bush KNEW beforehand there would be civilian casualties. These inevitable deaths warranted examining the evidence that we know was wrong, and that had already been shown to be wrong before he sent our troops to war.

Second, I would love to see a realistic comparison of civilian casualties caused by Coalition soldiers vs. civilian casualties caused by the actions of Iraqi forces--either before Sadaam fell, or by the "insurgents."

I would too. I'm sure there are many, many, many. Bush also knew beforehand that there would be innumerable civilian casualties from Iraqui forces and insurgents. We all knew. These inevitable deaths warranted examining the evidence that we know was wrong, and that had already been shown to be wrong before he sent our troops to war.

For my part, while I also deplore the casualties, I feel that Sadaam needed to be removed. I personally feel that he deserves execution for his crimes ... but that will be decided by an Iraqi court.

I thought and think that Hussein needed to be removed from power, and I had long thought that it was insane that nobody had stepped in. I can not, will not say that the end justifies the means in relation to this war. This war was not necessary. I also belive it's a dangerous thing to imply that the end result makes it okay. It diverts accountability for actions. Plus, while I am not directing this at you, for many people who support this train of thought, it is extremely hypocritical. There are equal reigns of terror going on that people continue to ignore. Bush (yes, I will direct it at him) has used the fact that Hussein's reign is over to his poltical gain, while he ignores equal attrocities. Perhaps I would have supported a war to overthrow Hussein. Perhaps we should be in other wars right now. But that's besides the point. That's something different.

The Presidential Oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Notice a reference to lying? Neither do I. Telling the truth is not required in the oath, and frankly I've yet to read of the history of a president who didn't have to lie, at least once, during his term of office.

That may be difficult to accept, but look at it this way: nations do not have ethics--they have interests. There are times when other nations want to do something morally wrong to us, or to an innocent third party.

Did Bush lie? It's quite possible. And it's utterly beside the point.

No, no reference to lying. But that does not mean that it's besides the point. Can you in good concience tell me that it's okay if Bush had ulterior motives for this war that he kept from the American public?

You know as well as I do that the Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with his affair with Lewinsky: it was about reducing the political power of a popular president. That's not an "ethical investigation," that's power politics.

Thanks for that. ... Heh, it's not too often I get to hear it coming from someone on the conservative side of the fence... I'll silently appreciate it for a sec (before the firestorm that's sure to follow this post). Yeah, I think power politics are completely out of control. Warping all of our minds. Left n right.

[BillyBob]

The war in Iraq was not just about WMD, contrary to the constant parroting of the whiney libs.

[Mr. 5020]

The war in Iraq was not just about WMD, contrary to the constant parroting of the whiney libs.
:chuckle:

[HerodionRomulus]

The war in Iraq was not just about WMD, contrary to the constant parroting of the whiney libs.

True.
It was about redeeming Daddy's legacy since Daddy failed to remove Saddam in the first war.
It is about money, power, and OIL OIL OIL.

[BillyBob]

:Commie:

[zoo22]

:Commie:

I'm definitely not communist.

[Frank Ernest]

True.
It was about redeeming Daddy's legacy since Daddy failed to remove Saddam in the first war.
It is about money, power, and OIL OIL OIL.
:darwinsm: Rewind, restart, old lies. :yawn:

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Hi, Zoo,

I tried to answer this earlier today ... and I was in the middle of my response when the power blinked.

Heh ... Actually, there were er, a FEW people who acknowledged it BEFORE we went to war. It was investigated and disputed by countless experts. I know you weren't being literal, but I think it's important ... Bush's evidence had already been shown to be wrong before he "ran with it."

Yet again ... if Bush deliberately lied, that's not the point.

Let's step back to a parallel situation. Starting in 1939, President Roosevelt started building up American military preparedness ... all the while assuring people that he would not be sending their sons to die in a "foreign war." We now know that Roosevelt knew that war was going to be inevitable. He fully intended for America to participate in the war, and he wanted to make sure that we were going to win.

In other words, Roosevelt lied through his teeth. He did so because American sentiment at that time would not tolerate a military buildup. Was he "wrong" for doing so? If you look at it morally, yes. But if you look at it politically, not only was it the best possible course of action, it was sheer brilliance.

Now, let me be quick to state that Bush is no Roosevelt. Times are different, and the man is different, but in one respect there is a strong parallel: both men felt that the conflict they were leading the nation into was vitally necessary for the safety of the nation.

Did Bush deliberately lie? Did he mis-read and "cherry-pick" the Intelligence? I honestly do not know--though it is obvious that what he claimed is not what we found. Yet I choose to believe that Roosevelt lied because he honestly and sincerely felt that America was at grave risk, and that the lie was the only way to avert that risk.

If Bush lied, I do not feel it is unreasonable to extend to him the same benefit of the doubt.

Justin

[Jeremiah85]

:darwinsm: Rewind, restart, old lies. :yawn: :BRAVO:

[BillyBob]

I'm definitely not communist.

You've already admited to being a left winger, what's the difference?

[BillyBob]

Besides, that :Commie: was for Herod......

[zoo22]

Yet again ... if Bush deliberately lied, that's not the point.

Let's step back to a parallel situation. Starting in 1939, President Roosevelt started building up American military preparedness ... all the while assuring people that he would not be sending their sons to die in a "foreign war." We now know that Roosevelt knew that war was going to be inevitable. He fully intended for America to participate in the war, and he wanted to make sure that we were going to win.

In other words, Roosevelt lied through his teeth. He did so because American sentiment at that time would not tolerate a military buildup. Was he "wrong" for doing so? If you look at it morally, yes. But if you look at it politically, not only was it the best possible course of action, it was sheer brilliance.

Now, let me be quick to state that Bush is no Roosevelt. Times are different, and the man is different, but in one respect there is a strong parallel: both men felt that the conflict they were leading the nation into was vitally necessary for the safety of the nation.

Did Bush deliberately lie? Did he mis-read and "cherry-pick" the Intelligence? I honestly do not know--though it is obvious that what he claimed is not what we found. Yet I choose to believe that Roosevelt lied because he honestly and sincerely felt that America was at grave risk, and that the lie was the only way to avert that risk.

I actually do understand what you're saying (and I think I had strayed from your subject) ... I guess my biggest issue with it hinges on me believing that the war is wrong: The fact that it was based on mistruths only adds to it. And in turn, because I believe that the war is wrong, it gives validity to the mistruths being wrong... I suppose that if I did not believe what I do, I would need to find justification. In my case, each (the war and the lies) only compound one another.

But do you see a line that is not okay to cross in a leader lying to the people? Or do you even think it is okay at all? In the debates, Bush made it very clear that there that there were absolutely no plans for a draft, and that there would not be a draft. For the sake of argument, let's say a draft was initiated, and it turned out that Bush knew full well it would be when he denied it. Would that be okay? If the country's best interest was his intent? For that matter, was it okay for Roosevelt to lie to the American public?

If Bush lied, I do not feel it is unreasonable to extend to him the same benefit of the doubt.

I think the biggest difference here is that with Roosevelt, we are looking at it in retrospect... It's in the past. While we can come to conclusions about it based on what history has revealed to us towards intent, motive, reason, we are powerless to make change to it. Bush's war is going on right now, and his intent, motives, reasons are in question. There has been no evidence showing that the reason we are in this war is because "he honestly and sincerely felt that America was at grave risk." That is yet to be determined.

[justchristian]

You've already admited to being a left winger, what's the difference?

Do you really think anyone left is a commie?

[Frank Ernest]

Do you really think anyone left is a commie?
Yes. Most lefties don't know they're :Commie:s. They are knee-jerk reactionaries who follow their masters blindly. They hide behind all kinds of noble rhetoric, claim not to know who Karl Marx is while pushing his ideas with religious zeal.

They support, protect and defend the enemies of the United States while claiming to be "true" patriots.

They support protect and defend the murders of the unborn and the old claiming the higher principle of "quality of life."

They join churches and demand the church bend to and accept their heretical and immoral standards. They support protect and defend every effort to remove religion and God from our social fabric.

They support protect and defend the most vicious of criminals while screaming "civil rights" and "social justice."

They support protect and defend "political correctness" which is nothing more than the trashing of our Constitution and the suppression of our God-given rights.

Just to be "fair", I believe the modern-day leftie is much closer to being a Nazi fascist rather than a :Commie:, but it's close enough.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I actually do understand what you're saying (and I think I had strayed from your subject) ... I guess my biggest issue with it hinges on me believing that the war is wrong: The fact that it was based on mistruths only adds to it.

OK, that may be the crux of understanding. What's wrong about the war? Is it that you are opposed to war in general (an understandable view, and one that I agree with to a certain extent), or do you feel that this war was specifically wrong?

But do you see a line that is not okay to cross in a leader lying to the people? Or do you even think it is okay at all? In the debates, Bush made it very clear that there that there were absolutely no plans for a draft, and that there would not be a draft. For the sake of argument, let's say a draft was initiated, and it turned out that Bush knew full well it would be when he denied it. Would that be okay? If the country's best interest was his intent? For that matter, was it okay for Roosevelt to lie to the American public?

I could wrinte books on the subject of Roosevelt's lying and not completely cover the subject, but here's a start. Was it OK for Roosevelt to lie? No. The core issue here is not if it was OK, but was it necessary to preserve the nation.

As for Bush ... yes, there are lines that should not be crossed, and I will gladly admit that while I earnestly believe that Bush ahs the best interests of America at heart, I am also aware that Hitler had the best interests of Germany at heart--at least, as he understood them.

But you are correct in one other regard: the fact that Roosevelt's lies are in the past gives them a remoteness that Bush's (possible but unproven) lies do not have.

To be honest, these are dillemas that I can solve for myself, but my solutions may not work for you.

Justin




I think the biggest difference here is that with Roosevelt, we are looking at it in retrospect... It's in the past. While we can come to conclusions about it based on what history has revealed to us towards intent, motive, reason, we are powerless to make change to it. Bush's war is going on right now, and his intent, motives, reasons are in question. There has been no evidence showing that the reason we are in this war is because "he honestly and sincerely felt that America was at grave risk." That is yet to be determined.[/QUOTE]

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Yes. Most lefties don't know they're :Commie:s. They are knee-jerk reactionaries who follow their masters blindly. They hide behind all kinds of noble rhetoric, claim not to know who Karl Marx is while pushing his ideas with religious zeal.

They support, protect and defend the enemies of the United States while claiming to be "true" patriots.

They support protect and defend the murders of the unborn and the old claiming the higher principle of "quality of life."

They join churches and demand the church bend to and accept their heretical and immoral standards. They support protect and defend every effort to remove religion and God from our social fabric.

They support protect and defend the most vicious of criminals while screaming "civil rights" and "social justice."

They support protect and defend "political correctness" which is nothing more than the trashing of our Constitution and the suppression of our God-given rights.

Just to be "fair", I believe the modern-day leftie is much closer to being a Nazi fascist rather than a :Commie:, but it's close enough.

Frank, do us all a favor ... drop the "broad brush," please. Such rhetoric as the above will not change the motives of those who are firmly entrenched in their ways, but may push those who are undecided into the opposite political camp.

Justin

[BillyBob]

Frank, do us all a favor ... drop the "broad brush," please.

What Frank wrote is the truth.

Such rhetoric as the above will not change the motives of those who are firmly entrenched in their ways,

Of course not, most commies are gonna stay commies.

but may push those who are undecided into the opposite political camp.

Justin

If people read the truth and make a decision based on it, what's the problem? Personally, I think a lot of lefties try to ignore the reality of liberalism/socialism/communism which is why they like to give a neat sounding name like 'Progressive', it makes them feel better about themselves but there is no point in covering up for them and pretending that the democrat party is anything short of the communist party. If that reality makes some 'undecided idiot' join them, at least he'll finally know what he is.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

What Frank wrote is the truth.

That's the point, BB--it is not the truth. It is nothing more than a slew of useless rhetoric, profane and vain babblings fit only to make a proud man prouder.

Do you want a perfect Biblical parallel to Franks rhetoric?

Luke 18:9-14
(9) And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
(10) Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
(11) The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
(12) I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
(13) And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
(14) I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Replace "publican" with "commie," or with "faggot," and it's amazing how many of the posts around here sound like the prayer of the Pharisee.

Justin

[BillyBob]

I reread Frank's post, he sums up Liberalism quite succinctly, what do you disagree with?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I reread Frank's post, he sums up Liberalism quite succinctly, what do you disagree with?

"God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, liberals, faggots, lefties, or even as this commie."

BillyBob, if you can't see a problem with that attitude, then I honestly do not know how to explain it further.

Justin

[BillyBob]

Justin, if you can't identify the ideology of liberals, I don't know what to tell you. Frank summed it up for us, it's right there.

[Frank Ernest]

Frank, do us all a favor ... drop the "broad brush," please.
Give me a reason.

Such rhetoric as the above will not change the motives of those who are firmly entrenched in their ways, but may push those who are undecided into the opposite political camp.

Justin
I have heard this particular homilic rhapsody for the past 50 years+ and I'm sick of hearing it. :madmad: Let the wishy-washy pablum-fed Marxist-wannabes wander into the "opposite political camp." At least they will have taken a stand instead of trying to feed me their phoney, nobility-ridden, hypocritical, thinly-disguised :Commie: crap.

[BillyBob]

Justin, this is the second time I have seen you accuse Frank of driving someone to liberalism. I have a hard time believing that someone could be so devoid of any political ideology that the only reason they have for becoming a liberal is they don't like Frank.

[BillyBob]

If that's the case, drive as many useless, non motivated, undecided, stupid people into their camp as you can Frank! It'll only help us out in the long run! :darwinsm:

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Justin, this is the second time I have seen you accuse Frank of driving someone to liberalism. I have a hard time believing that someone could be so devoid of any political ideology that the only reason they have for becoming a liberal is they don't like Frank.

You wouldn't believe how thin-skinned and "open-minded" (more correctly, "empty-headed") some fo the college students I've been hanging around are.

Justin

[Frank Ernest]

"God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, liberals, faggots, lefties, or even as this commie."

BillyBob, if you can't see a problem with that attitude, then I honestly do not know how to explain it further.

Justin
I can explain it further for you. You are one of the pompous bloviators who thinks himself holier-than-thou and judge of everyone else because you figured how how to screw around with the Bible.

You have a problem with this "attitude?"
Matthew 3:7-12.

[BillyBob]

You wouldn't believe how thin-skinned and "open-minded" (more correctly, "empty-headed") some fo the college students I've been hanging around are.

Justin

Which augments my point, I don't want them as a member of my 'party' if they are that stupid.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I can explain it further for you. You are one of the pompous bloviators who thinks himself holier-than-thou and judge of everyone else because you figured how how to screw around with the Bible.

How is that different from being a pompous bloviators who thinks himself holier-than-thou and judge of everyone else because you figured how how to spell "commie?"

You have a problem with this "attitude?"
Matthew 3:7-12.

Remember which side of the parable your actions most closely resemble.

Justin

[Frank Ernest]

How is that different from being a pompous bloviators who thinks himself holier-than-thou and judge of everyone else because you figured how how to spell "commie?"



Remember which side of the parable your actions most closely resemble.

Justin
Nice try, no cigarillo! I KNOW which side of the parables I'm on. Best you can do is try to convince me otherwise. No chance there either, :Commie: atheist.

You can either realize what you are or you can pursue the same lines of argument used by other teenaged brats who feel oh-so-superior.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Nice try, no cigarillo! I KNOW which side of the parables I'm on.

I'm sure the pharisee did, too.

Best you can do is try to convince me otherwise. No chance there either, :Commie: atheist.

You can either realize what you are or you can pursue the same lines of argument used by other teenaged brats who feel oh-so-superior.

There are three outright lies in the above portion of the post. I'll leave them for you to discern.

Justin

[Justin (Wiccan)]

How is that different from being a pompous bloviators who thinks himself holier-than-thou and judge of everyone else because you figured how how to spell "commie?"



Remember which side of the parable your actions most closely resemble.

Justin

Getting bad repped for this post is probably the greatest honor you have ever paid me, Frank. I consider twelve points--or all my rep points--a very cheap price to pay for speaking the truth.

Justin

[zoo22]

OK, that may be the crux of understanding. What's wrong about the war? Is it that you are opposed to war in general (an understandable view, and one that I agree with to a certain extent), or do you feel that this war was specifically wrong?

I’m opposed to war generally, not completely... Sometimes there seems no other solution, or at least we have not found that place yet. I’m specifically opposed to this war. Primarily because I don’t believe it was necessary. This isn’t to say that I don’t think that good things can come from it … Hussein’s ousting, the possible spread of Democracy… But I don’t believe that this war was necessary to achieve these things (nor do I believe that they are the reasons we are there). I don't believe that this war was necessary to preserve the Nation. And the reek of Imperialism is too strong for my taste...

I could wrinte books on the subject of Roosevelt's lying and not completely cover the subject, but here's a start. Was it OK for Roosevelt to lie? No. The core issue here is not if it was OK, but was it necessary to preserve the nation.

Could be a pretty interesting read in these times… You’ve actually inspired me to head out tonight looking for a good book on Roosevelt.

To be honest, these are dillemas that I can solve for myself, but my solutions may not work for you.

FWIW, I admire that. Also your clarity.

[zoo22]

Yes. Most lefties don't know they're :Commie:s. They are knee-jerk reactionaries who follow their masters blindly. They hide behind all kinds of noble rhetoric, claim not to know who Karl Marx is while pushing his ideas with religious zeal.

They support, protect and defend the enemies of the United States while claiming to be "true" patriots.

They support protect and defend the murders of the unborn and the old claiming the higher principle of "quality of life."

They join churches and demand the church bend to and accept their heretical and immoral standards. They support protect and defend every effort to remove religion and God from our social fabric.

They support protect and defend the most vicious of criminals while screaming "civil rights" and "social justice."

They support protect and defend "political correctness" which is nothing more than the trashing of our Constitution and the suppression of our God-given rights.

Just to be "fair", I believe the modern-day leftie is much closer to being a Nazi fascist rather than a :Commie:, but it's close enough.

And you wouldn't believe what it's like when we take our human disguises off at night and start spinning our heads around 180 degrees!

[BillyBob]

And you wouldn't believe what it's like when we take our human disguises off at night and start spinning our heads around 180 degrees!

Sure we would, we see it every day in the likes of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid and the rest of the demo-commies....:dizzy:

[Frank Ernest]

I'm sure the pharisee did, too.
:darwinsm:

There are three outright lies in the above portion of the post. I'll leave them for you to discern.

Justin
:yawn:

[Frank Ernest]

Getting bad repped for this post is probably the greatest honor you have ever paid me, Frank. I consider twelve points--or all my rep points--a very cheap price to pay for speaking the truth.

Justin
If you spoke the truth, you wouldn't have a problem. :HINT:

[Frank Ernest]

And you wouldn't believe what it's like when we take our human disguises off at night and start spinning our heads around 180 degrees!
The spirit of :aikido:7 is walking to and fro upon the earth, it would seem.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

If you spoke the truth, you wouldn't have a problem. :HINT:

Point out where I lied, or retract the statement.

Justin

[Frank Ernest]

Point out where I lied, or retract the statement.

Justin
:yawn: Go play your silly infantile game with someone else.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

:yawn: Go play your silly infantile game with someone else.

That's about what I expected from you, Frank. Lies, excuses to cover your lies, then when you get called on those lies, you decide it's all a game that you don't want to play anymore.

Justin

[Frank Ernest]

That's about what I expected from you, Frank. Lies, excuses to cover your lies, then when you get called on those lies, you decide it's all a game that you don't want to play anymore.

Justin
You just invented a fallacious scenario to fit that monster ego you're determined to feed. Congrats! :loser:

[Justin (Wiccan)]

You just invented a fallacious scenario to fit that monster ego you're determined to feed. Congrats! :loser:

I invented nothing.

You lied: Post 1861 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=756237&postcount=1861) I am neither a Communist, an atheist, nor a teenager.

You excused your lies (telling another lie in the process, but that's beside the point): Post 1868 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=756964&postcount=1868) I was speaking the truth, to the best of my understanding. If I was in error, it was an honest error--and I am always willing to accept correction, provided that said correction is given with reason, not with "Because I said so."

When called on it, you decided you didn't want to play anymore: Post 1871 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=757002&postcount=1871)

J

[SOTK]

This silly, ridiculous thread is still alive? :darwinsm:

It was started in 2003 and Skeptic failed miserably in it's intended purpose. :D

[Frank Ernest]

I invented nothing.

You lied: Post 1861 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=756237&postcount=1861) I am neither a Communist, an atheist, nor a teenager.
:yawn: Usual state of denial.

You excused your lies (telling another lie in the process, but that's beside the point): Post 1868 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=756964&postcount=1868) I was speaking the truth, to the best of my understanding. If I was in error, it was an honest error--and I am always willing to accept correction, provided that said correction is given with reason, not with "Because I said so."
No, you are not willing to accept correction no matter what the reason.

When called on it, you decided you didn't want to play anymore: Post 1871 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=757002&postcount=1871)

J
:blabla:

[Frank Ernest]

This silly, ridiculous thread is still alive? :darwinsm:

It was started in 2003 and Skeptic failed miserably in it's intended purpose. :D
Hi :SOTK:!

Have some points. :thumb:

[SOTK]

Hi :SOTK:!

Have some points. :thumb:

Howdy! Back atcha, my friend! :D

[Justin (Wiccan)]

This silly, ridiculous thread is still alive? :darwinsm:

It was started in 2003 and Skeptic failed miserably in it's intended purpose. :D

Occasionally persistant ideas should be countered with derision, but I've usually found logic to be a more useful tool. ;)

Justin

[Justin (Wiccan)]

No, you are not willing to accept correction no matter what the reason.

This is only additional proof that you do not know me.

Anyway, Frank, it's been fun, but there's a serious discussion going on here. Go play with the kiddies, and let the grownups talk.

Justin

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I’m opposed to war generally, not completely... Sometimes there seems no other solution, or at least we have not found that place yet. I’m specifically opposed to this war. Primarily because I don’t believe it was necessary. This isn’t to say that I don’t think that good things can come from it … Hussein’s ousting, the possible spread of Democracy… But I don’t believe that this war was necessary to achieve these things (nor do I believe that they are the reasons we are there). I don't believe that this war was necessary to preserve the Nation. And the reek of Imperialism is too strong for my taste...

Well, I'll tell you the truth: I also am somewhat concerned about the resemblance to imperialism. However, whether or not there was a better way to accomplish the ouster of Hussein, we will never know. Done is done.
* At this point, we have accomplished the goal of getting Hussein out of power, and he's on his way to trial for his crimes.
* Democracy has an opportunity in Iraq, which is something that would never have happened with that monster in power. (Of course, whether or not Democracy takes hold is up to the Iraqis.)
* Hussein may not have had WMD in his posession since 1991. However, we know that he had them before, and we know that he intended to have them again once the sanctions were lifted.
* Hussein may not have been directly linked to Islamist Extremist groups--he didn't trust them, and he didn't want them in Iraq. However, we know he supplied them with cash and arms while they were working in other areas. That is no longe the case.

In the long run, was the war "the right thing to do?" We'll have to wait for the verdict of history to see what the long-run results are. In the short term, it has provided many benefits. I'm sure you've read the history of some of the things Hussein had done to the Iraqis ... he will do these things no more.

There's one other consideration: as I said before, done is done. Even if it could be established that Bush did wrong in getting us into the war (a point that I respectfully disagree on), we're there now. If we pulled out our troups and left the Iraqis to their own devices, the nation would dissolve into a bloodbath: the presence of Islamist Extremist terrorists and former Ba'ath party members would ensure that.

Could be a pretty interesting read in these times… You’ve actually inspired me to head out tonight looking for a good book on Roosevelt.

Like Bush, Roosevelt was doing the best he could with what he had to work with ... but the important thing is that, IMO, Bush is earnestly trying to do the right thing for America, and to do his best by the rest of the world.

FWIW, I admire that. Also your clarity.

Thank you.

Justin

[Frank Ernest]

This is only additional proof that you do not know me.

Anyway, Frank, it's been fun, but there's a serious discussion going on here. Go play with the kiddies, and let the grownups talk.

Justin
:darwinsm: Too late! I used that one first.

[Skeptic]

Justin, how is it that you have so much time for your current posting rate? I'm impressed, and jealous!

Originally Posted by Skeptic:
Why did the Pentagon and CIA never provide any clear, hard, empirical evidence that Iraq was a WMD threat?

Probably because it never was. My best surmise is that Bush felt the invasion of Iraq was necessary, took what evidence he had, and ran with it. It turns out that the evidence was wrong--I'll be the first to acknowledge that--and was far thinner than presented. There are too many unanswered questions regarding the reasons Bush invaded Iraq. No President should have the power to invade another country based merely upon how he felt at the time. If the evidence was never clear, hard and empirical, then Bush had no business invading Iraq. The ONLY moral justification for invading another country is clear, hard evidence of either a real, significant and imminent threat, or clear hard evidence of a major catastrophic genocide or humanitarian crisis that could only be stopped by such an invasion.

Originally Posted by Skeptic:
Why did they claim that the hearsay, suspicions, lies, exaggerations and distortions of the alleged threat were verified, when they knew they were not?

Skeptic, do you know how Intelligence works? No, that's not a sarcastic question--I'm quite serious. In short, Intelligence works much like Journalism--and if you have multiple Intel sources who lie, or are mistaken, or are mis-evaluated, then you have "verified Intelligence" that is wrong. However, a full discussion (which this subject badly needs) is beyond the scope of this thread. If Newsweek published a story based on sources who lied, were mistaken, or mis-evaluated, and the result was the unnecessary slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, then Newsweek would be held accountable, heads would roll, and publication would cease to exist. When thousands of innocent lives are at stake, government intelligence had better be based on clear, hard empirical evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat or crisis, otherwise any resulting war will never be justified and the immoral idiots responsible should be thrown out of office.

Originally Posted by Skeptic:
The evidence for Iraq's WMD threat was not conclusive either, but that didn't stop Bush for slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children anyway!

First and foremost, your assertion that Bush "slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children" is rhetoric. The failure of the government and media to include the fact that tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children died unnecessarily, and, therefore, immorally, is itself rhetoric.

Yes, civilian casualties happen in war. Yes, it is a horrid situation when they do. Our soldiers are trained to avoid civilian casualties as much as is possible, but sometimes it is not possible. But the point is that it WAS possible avoid those civilian casualties. Don't invade! No clear hard evidence of a real threat, no civilian casualties!

Second, I would love to see a realistic comparison of civilian casualties caused by Coalition soldiers vs. civilian casualties caused by the actions of Iraqi forces--either before Sadaam fell, or by the "insurgents." Comparisons such as this are irrelevant. I have never said Saddam's past atrocities or those performed by "insurgents" were justifiable. The casualty numbers are irrelevant as well. Saddam committed the bulk of his atrocities back in the late 1980's. There was no evidence of an imminent threat of similar atrocities happening at the hands of Saddam in the months leading up to Bush's March 2003 invasion. Insurgents began committing their atrocities only after Bush's unnecessary invasion. The key point is that Bush's atrocity was to order an unnecessary and immoral bloody invasion of Iraq, knowing full well that he was not in possession of clear, hard, empirical evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat. Did Bush ask the Pentagon and CIA whether they were 100% certain that their intelligence was based on verifiably clear, hard, empirical evidence upon which any reasonable persons or nations could agree? No! In your words, "Bush felt the invasion of Iraq was necessary, took what evidence he had, and ran with it." Well, running with evidence that consists of only hearsay, suspicions, lies, exaggerations and distortions, and ordering a massive bloody invasion based on such "thin" evidence, should at least be grounds for removing Bush from office, if not charging him with crimes against humanity.

Originally Posted by Skeptic:
So, even though the evidence is not conclusive that Bush tried to fix the facts, why not do a bipartisan investigation into this?

That's not my job to decide--that's up to Congress. Do you think Bush would have decided to invade Iraq, given the "thin" evidence he had, if Congress had not been controlled by is fellow and supportive Republicans? :bang:

For my part, while I also deplore the casualties, I feel that Sadaam needed to be removed. I personally feel that he deserves execution for his crimes ... but that will be decided by an Iraqi court. I agree. Saddam needed to be removed from power. There was, however, plenty of time to explore other options for removing him. Hell, I would have even preferred efforts to assassinate him over slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children to achieve the same end! If assassination attempts did not work, we still had time to explore other options for dealing with Saddam.

BTW, "spreading Democracy" does not justify invading countries and killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process! (If enough people, inclulding the media, had used this kind of rhetoric before the war, thousands of innocent people would not have died.)

Originally Posted by Skeptic:
If a President violates his oath to "faithfully execute the office" by failing to be true to the facts (i.e. fixing the facts presented to Congress and the American people), why isn't this a violation of the Constitution?

The Presidential Oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Notice a reference to lying? Neither do I. Telling the truth is not required in the oath, and frankly I've yet to read of the history of a president who didn't have to lie, at least once, during his term of office. Failing to "faithfully" execute the Office is equivalent to lying. Being "true to the facts" is part of the definition of "faithful."

There is a huge difference between lying about things that does not cost the lives of others and lying that costs the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people, as well as the lives of our brave, but misguided, troops.

That may be difficult to accept, but look at it this way: nations do not have ethics--they have interests. There are times when other nations want to do something morally wrong to us, or to an innocent third party. International law is an attempt to codify ethical relations between nations.

Did Bush lie? It's quite possible. And it's utterly beside the point. No, that utterly IS the point! What do you think would happen to Bush if the vast majority of Americans and Congress believed he did lie about the reasons for sending our brave troops into harm's way and killing all of those innocent Iraqi men, women and children?

Originally Posted by Skeptic:
So, Congress says that lying about personal matter (sex) under oath is a higher crime than lying to Congress and the American people about the alleged facts that led to war and the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

You know as well as I do that the Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with his affair with Lewinsky: it was about reducing the political power of a popular president. That's not an "ethical investigation," that's power politics. Likewise, today, we have not had an ethical investigation into the reasons Bush invaded Iraq. Why not? Power politics.

As for Bush--even if he lied, Congress decides cases on an individual basis. This is why there needs to be a REAL balance of power in our government! When too much power is in the hands of one party, the ability of power to corrupt shows its face. The epitome of abuse of power is when a President can get away with starting wars without clear, hard, empirically verifiable intelligence.

I didn't answer all the questions--many of them were based on whether or not Bush lied, and frankly as I said that's not the point. And Skeptic ... I don't mean that to sound derisive to your views. I do take your questions seriously, but the number of questions you asked would need a book to answer fully. Either that, our you feel uncomfortable taking a moral position on the issues I raise.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Justin, how is it that you have so much time for your current posting rate? I'm impressed, and jealous!

Don't be. Long story, my friend....

There are too many unanswered questions regarding the reasons Bush invaded Iraq. No President should have the power to invade another country based merely upon how he felt at the time.

1: Fallacy of equivocation. My use of the word was not as a "whim," but a colloquialism for his best judgement based on the information he had regarding Hussein's capabilities.

2: "Should" - "Is" fallacy. "No president should" is nothing but your subjective opinion. Presidents do have that authority. You may disagree with his judgement--that is certainly your priveledge--but your disagreement is not an authoritative portion of the decision-making process for national policy.

If the evidence was never clear, hard and empirical, then Bush had no business invading Iraq.

Actually, that's incorrect. The only justification necessary was that he felt it was necessary to preserve US interests. If he can convince Congress that he's correct--then it's not only legal, it's perfectly well within his oath. Remember, I've said it before--nations do not have ethics: they have interests.

The ONLY moral justification for invading another country is clear, hard evidence of either a real, significant and imminent threat, or clear hard evidence of a major catastrophic genocide or humanitarian crisis that could only be stopped by such an invasion.

These are the only justifications that you consider moral--and there are many people who agree with you, or who even state that your justifications are too lenient. However, even with your assertion, we have evidence of genocide and humanitarian crisis. The gassing of the Kurds, the oppression of the religious majority ... those qualify under your parameters. Both are now stopped.

If Newsweek published a story based on sources who lied, were mistaken, or mis-evaluated, and the result was the unnecessary slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, then Newsweek would be held accountable, heads would roll, and publication would cease to exist.

Does the distinction between "tens of thousands" and fifteen make an actual difference?

When thousands of innocent lives are at stake, government intelligence had better be based on clear, hard empirical evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat or crisis, otherwise any resulting war will never be justified and the immoral idiots responsible should be thrown out of office.

Government intelligence is almost never based on clear, hard empirical evidence. Such evidence costs too much to obtain--both in money and in the lives of those who collect the intelligence.

I'm going to skip down to the bottom, as there is a very important point I wish to address before my hands give out.

Either that, our you feel uncomfortable taking a moral position on the issues I raise.

Do not ever again presume to guess my comfort level in taking a moral stance. In light of your ignorance of my personality or the moral stances that I take, that's nothing more than a rhetorical cheap shot.

Justin

[Skeptic]

1: Fallacy of equivocation. My use of the word was not as a "whim," but a colloquialism for his best judgement based on the information he had regarding Hussein's capabilities. Regardless of any constitutional issues, it is my opinion that going to war should not be based upon the "best judgment" of anyone, in the absence of clear, hard, verifiable, empirical evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat.

2: "Should" - "Is" fallacy. "No president should" is nothing but your subjective opinion. Presidents do have that authority. You may disagree with his judgement--that is certainly your priveledge--but your disagreement is not an authoritative portion of the decision-making process for national policy. I am doing nothing but expressing my subjective opinion! If presidents do have that sole authority, they shouldn't.

Actually, that's incorrect. The only justification necessary was that he felt it was necessary to preserve US interests. If he can convince Congress that he's correct--then it's not only legal, it's perfectly well within his oath. I'm not talking about legal justification, only moral justification - in my opinion. Those who share my opinion should work toward changing the laws or the Constitution to match their opinion. The right-wing fundies have been doing a better job of this for several years now.

There are many who think Bush violated international law when he invaded Iraq. What do you think?

Remember, I've said it before--nations do not have ethics: they have interests. Why don't nations have ethics, while individuals do? Can a small group of individuals have ethics? Can a group's "ethics committee" decide on ethics violations of members of that group? Are laws supposed to correspond to ethical standards? If so, what about international laws? Have there ever been unethical wars?

These are the only justifications that you consider moral--and there are many people who agree with you, or who even state that your justifications are too lenient. Yes.

However, even with your assertion, we have evidence of genocide and humanitarian crisis. The gassing of the Kurds, the oppression of the religious majority ... those qualify under your parameters. Both are now stopped. Invading a country (which everyone knows almost always involves killing thousands of innocent people) because a dictator committed atrocities over a decade earlier, without evidence that a similar atrocity is imminently pending, is not morally justifiable. Again, there was plenty of time to explore other ways of dealing with Saddam, who was boxed in and monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community.

Does the distinction between "tens of thousands" and fifteen make an actual difference? If taking out Saddam only resulted in the deaths of 15 people, I would have been more comfortable with that. However, even if only 15 people had died during Bush's invasion, this would not have been morally justified, given the fact that Bush and company failed to produce any clear, hard, empirical evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat. Invading countries simply to overthrow a brutal dictator, who is not a threat, is not morally justifiable. Is it legally justifiable under international law? Not based on what I've read. But, I don't know whether you even respect or acknowledge international law.

Government intelligence is almost never based on clear, hard empirical evidence. Such evidence costs too much to obtain--both in money and in the lives of those who collect the intelligence. The cost of thousands of innocent lives is too much to obtain by failing to acquire such evidence! Look at what Bush's misadventure in Iraq has cost in terms of money and lives. If we had spent whatever it takes to determine whether any clear, hard empirical evidence existed in the first place, we would have saved lots of money and lives!

I'm going to skip down to the bottom, as there is a very important point I wish to address before my hands give out. I hope you will return and address the issues you missed.

Do not ever again presume to guess my comfort level in taking a moral stance. In light of your ignorance of my personality or the moral stances that I take, that's nothing more than a rhetorical cheap shot. I never claimed to know your personality or moral stance. How could I know? So far, you have stuck to trying to point out your interpretation of the law, rather than address things from a moral perspective. I've been waiting, but you haven't gone there -- unless I missed it. When you said "the number of questions you asked would need a book to answer fully" this suggested to me that you were not interested in expressing your moral stance on the issues.

You said "Did Bush lie? It's quite possible. And it's utterly beside the point." Yes, Bush might have lied. I think he probably did. Yes, Presidents tend to lie. And, yes, Presidents apparently can legally get away with lying. But, where is the moral outrage!! To say that a President has a legal right to start a war, even while lying to Congress and the American people about his reasons for doing so, fails to address something more important than the law. That is, was it morally right for Bush to lie to Congress and the American people about starting a war that unnecessarily killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children? I can't think of ANYTHING a President could do that could be more immoral. Can you? And the very thought that Bush's actions may have been within the law of the United States makes me even more outraged!! He actually got away with such an immoral (if not illegal) crime? :noway:

Telling a pro-life fundie that abortion is legal only serves to magnify his moral outrage. Telling me that Bush's bloody invasion of Iraq was legal, despite the outrageously "thin" evidence, only serves to magnify my moral outrage. I don't know how you feel about the morality of Bush's invasion, but I sure would like to know.

[Skeptic]

That's about what I expected from you, Frank. Lies, excuses to cover your lies, then when you get called on those lies, you decide it's all a game that you don't want to play anymore. Frank and BillyBob's primary mission is to demonize anyone who is left of center, rather than attempt to engage in rational dialog.

As you no doubt know by now, their demonization quickly becomes quite boring. :yawn:

[Skeptic]

This silly, ridiculous thread is still alive?

It was started in 2003 and Skeptic failed miserably in it's intended purpose. My sole purpose was to encourage debate and at least plant a few seeds of doubt among the undecided. I think I achieved that.

[Skeptic]

Occasionally persistant ideas should be countered with derision, but I've usually found logic to be a more useful tool. :thumb:

As skeptics tend to do, I try to always allow for the possibility that I am wrong, especially when I'm certain I'm right. I'm often wrong about things, but I view being wrong as a great opportunity to learn something new. Those who persist in believing things for which there is no empirical evidence tend to stubbornly refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong. I have found that such individuals are more likely to use derision as their primary debating tool.

"The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that
for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions
about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge."

-- T. H. Huxley

[Frank Ernest]

Frank and BillyBob's primary mission is to demonize anyone who is left of center, rather than attempt to engage in rational dialog.

As you no doubt know by now, their demonization quickly becomes quite boring. :yawn:
:darwinsm:

[Morpheus]

:darwinsm:
Thanks Frank for verifying Skeptic's statement.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Telling a pro-life fundie that abortion is legal only serves to magnify his moral outrage. Telling me that Bush's bloody invasion of Iraq was legal, despite the outrageously "thin" evidence, only serves to magnify my moral outrage. I don't know how you feel about the morality of Bush's invasion, but I sure would like to know.

Where's my moral outrage? How should I be outraged when the war was the necessary thing to do? Notice I did not say it was "right"--I've already explained to you that nations do not have ethics, and I've already explained to you why that is so.

Your moral outrage comes from your decision to concentrate on the victims of this war, rather than on the reason. That is your choice, but having once attempted to illustrate the reasons, I feel no obligation to persuade you from your decision.

Justin

[Skeptic]

Where's my moral outrage? How should I be outraged when the war was the necessary thing to do? Why was Bush's invasion of Iraq necessary? In March 2003, the Iraqi people were not in such urgent need of "liberation" that we needed to kill tens of thousands of innocent men,women and children to achieve it. Bush's invasion has not made America safer. The U.S. is hated now more than ever, because of the invasion. Terrorist recruitment dramatically increased as a result of the invasion. Their was no hard pre-war or post-war evidence that Iraq was a WMD threat. There is even growing suspicion that Bush and company tried to fix the facts to justify his invasion in the eyes of Congress and the American people. Where was the necessity?

Notice I did not say it was "right"--I've already explained to you that nations do not have ethics, and I've already explained to you why that is so. I'm sorry, but I must have missed your explanation. Nations don't have ethics because ....

Your moral outrage comes from your decision to concentrate on the victims of this war, rather than on the reason. That is your choice, but having once attempted to illustrate the reasons, I feel no obligation to persuade you from your decision. If the reasons were morally justifiable, then I would not be morally outraged. So far, you seemed to have only focused on the legal reasons. Do you think the reasons Bush invaded Iraq were morally justifiable? If so, why?

And, is it me, did you actually illustrate in this thread the reasons Bush invaded Iraq? You talked about why Bush did not violate the law or the Constitution, and that it was allegedly his "best judgment" that it was necessary, but I don't recall you stating the real reasons that made the invasion morally justifiable. If I missed something, please refer me to the post I missed.

[On Fire]

Skeptic, this thread is nearly 2 years old. Bush has been re-elected. We are winning the war against terrorism. Yes, I know, the terrorists are still blowing themselves up....but there's no mandating mental health.

Cuba is looking for a few mediocre men. Please go.

[justchristian]

Reason for the war? Come on, the reason before you (IamCanadian) went was to protect America, weapons of mass destruction, associates with terrorists (and secretly oil) etc. Now that the war is "over" its all about spreading democracy, liberating a people, protecting America from a potential long term threat and of course (secretly oil). Bush made a call to go to war based on "weapons of mass destruction" and "ties to terrorists" when these allegations proved false after the war he should have been called on it. But noooooo, you relected him. Which to me kinda makes the point of impeaching him inconsequential since the majority (which in a democracy counts for something) didnt really care and relected the man. The rest of the world thinks you guys are nuts, but I think its safe to say the majority of you stand behind your president and to me that's enough not to impeach the man.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Hi, Skeptic,

I'm gonna have to keep it short today ... my hands are giving me more than a bit of grief.

Why was Bush's invasion of Iraq necessary?

That's what I get for trying to use "short-hand." ;)

I cannot absolutely tell you that the war was, indeed, necessary. However, the criteria here are whether or not President Bush (as CinC) believed it was necessary, and whether or not Congress (as authorizing power) agreed with him.

Whether or not the war was actually necessary--or, in other words, whether or not, Bush's decision was justified--will be decided by history.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed your explanation. Nations don't have ethics because ....

Sorry ... I thought I'd explained. Looking back, I see I didn't.

Ethics, simply defined, is "the knowledge of right and wrong." This is solely and strictly the purview of the individual--an organization, as a discrete entity, does not "know," and therefore cannot have a knowledge of ethics.

Now, individuals within that organization can choose to act in an ethical manner ... but what happens when that person's own ethics conflict with the goals and aims of the organization? Sometimes the decision is relatively easy: say the board of directors of XYZCorp decides not to use sweatshop labor. They've got a great profit margin, so they can afford American labor.

But sometimes the decision gets hard. The main job of a board of directors is to make the company profitable. So if XYZCorp goes through a hard time, they might start using sweatshop labor. This is not an ethical decision--this is a decision based on the interests of the company.

The big problem with trying to hold the President--any Presidnet, not just Bush--to an "ethical" standard is that there are times when the best interests of our nation cannot be maintained in an ethical manner.

Is it "ethical" to send agents to recruit spies in other countries? Is it "ethical" to try to force foreign manufacturers to not undersell domestic manufacturers? Is it "ethical" to threaten to invade a country because they're doing something you don't like? The answer to all of these questions is, of course, "no"--but at times in our history, it has been necessary to maintain US interests.

And, is it me, did you actually illustrate in this thread the reasons Bush invaded Iraq?

Skeptic, I do not know if the reasons are justifiable in light of national interests. I do know that as long as you look at it as a "moral" issue, then nothing will ever justify the invasion to you.

However, the main reason I reply in terms of Constitutional law is because this thread is about impeachment. I feel I have successfully established that your request for Bush's impeachment is illogical.

[Frank Ernest]

Thanks Frank for verifying Skeptic's statement.
:darwinsm::loser:

[Skeptic]

I cannot absolutely tell you that the war was, indeed, necessary. Thank you.

However, the criteria here are whether or not President Bush (as CinC) believed it was necessary, and whether or not Congress (as authorizing power) agreed with him. I'll return to this later.

Whether or not the war was actually necessary--or, in other words, whether or not, Bush's decision was justified--will be decided by history. Unless someday someone finds clear hard evidence that Iraq actually was a real, significant and imminent WMD threat to America or other countries, history will never decide that Bush's bloody invasion was necessary. It is unlikely such evidence will ever come forth. The future of Iraq will also never decide whether it was necessary or justified. Even if tomorrow Iraq became the most freedom-loving and democratic nation the world has ever known, this still would not justify the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, not to mention our brave, but misguided, troops Bush sent there.

Ethics, simply defined, is "the knowledge of right and wrong." This is solely and strictly the purview of the individual--an organization, as a discrete entity, does not "know," and therefore cannot have a knowledge of ethics. "Having ethics" does not necessarily mean "knowing" anything. Asking whether an individual or group of individuals, such as a nation, "has ethics" is analogous to asking whether an individual or group "has laws." Nations "have laws" in the same way they "have ethics" (i.e. ethical standards). Laws often (not always) tend to reflect the ethical standards of the collective. A collective of nations can also agree upon certain ethical standards. When they have done so, it is accurate to say such nations "have ethics."

The big problem with trying to hold the President--any Presidnet, not just Bush--to an "ethical" standard is that there are times when the best interests of our nation cannot be maintained in an ethical manner. Don't you agree that what some consider is our "best interests," others may consider not in our best interests? President Bush has given me little reason to believe that he knows what is in America's best interest.

Is it "ethical" to send agents to recruit spies in other countries? If their mission is to look for serious national security threats, then yes. If their mission is to overthrow or undermine the leadership of a nation that is not a threat, because their system of government is not to our liking, then no.

Is it "ethical" to try to force foreign manufacturers to not undersell domestic manufacturers? No. It would be more ethical to restrict the import of certain products, if doing so would protect a vital segment of our economy. Ensuring a level playing field by making sure that any foreign company doing business with the U.S. follow the same employment and environmental rules and regulations as domestic companies would also be more ethical.

Is it "ethical" to threaten to invade a country because they're doing something you don't like? No. It is also not ethical to threaten to invade a country because they have something that we want. If there were a serious oil shortage in the U.S. that threatened the stability of our economy, and Saudi Arabia or other oil-rich nations refused to sell it to us, it would not be ethical for the U.S. to threaten to invade such nations for not complying - even if doing so would might be our short-term economic interest. It is not the responsibility of other nations to support the energy needs of a country that constitutes a mere 5% of the world's population, yet uses about 25% of world oil production. Furthermore, it is not ethical for the U.S. to actually invade oil-rich nations for their oil, while falsely claiming the real reason was because they posed a WMD threat, when our leaders knew very well the hard evidence suggested that such WMDs were destroyed years ago.

The answer to all of these questions is, of course, "no"--but at times in our history, it has been necessary to maintain US interests. Ethical ends do not justify unethical means. If U.S. interests cannot be maintained by ethical means, then I question whether such interests should be maintained.

Skeptic, I do not know if the reasons are justifiable in light of national interests. Thank you.

I do know that as long as you look at it as a "moral" issue, then nothing will ever justify the invasion to you. As long as people fail to look at it as a moral issue, they will continue to find ways to justify the means with ends.

What do you think could have justified Bush's invasion, short of solid evidence that Iraq posed an imminent WMD threat? I don't think that invading a country that might someday pose an imminent threat is ethical. Right-wingers have said that it is sometimes important strike first in order to prevent a future threat from becoming imminent. I disagree. Killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children because there is a possibility that our innocent men, women and children might someday be imminently threatened, is a barbaric notion that many folks thought humans had abandoned.

It does, however, make the notion more palatable when it is sanitized of the human costs. A rephrasing of the situation makes a lot of sense to many folks. After all, it seems to make a lot of sense to prevent diseases before they occur by watching our diet, exercising and avoiding various disease causing factors. Removing benign tumors before they become cancerous makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? What about removing potential criminals from our streets before they commit their crimes? Seems to makes sense. Finally, doesn't it make sense to get rid of a brutal America-hating dictator before he acquires the means to hurt really us? When it is phrased in such simplistic terms, who can disagree with such logic? But, when reality is humanized and personalized by factoring in the human costs of the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children, it causes one to pause and reconsider such logic.

Prior to March 2003, Bush and company did not want us to pause and reflect on the human costs. The neocons in power appealed only to the logic of getting rid of a potential threat, if not a real and imminent threat. Pre-emption makes a lot of sense, if the notion is sufficiently dehumanized. From my perspective, our national interests would be much better served if those who make decisions regarding war phrased their rhetoric in such a way as to humanize the consequences of their decisions as much as possible. If, as a result, Americans find that they have trouble stomaching such human consequences of war, perhaps this would help ensure that public and media pressure be place upon our leaders to produce clear, hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat before decisions for war are made. Bush did not have such evidence, only hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations, which should never be a basis for war.

However, the main reason I reply in terms of Constitutional law is because this thread is about impeachment. I feel I have successfully established that your request for Bush's impeachment is illogical. You said earlier that "the Clinton impeachment ... was about reducing the political power of a popular president" and "power politics." You probably agree then that, if the right-wing had failed to convince enough Americans and members of Congress that Clinton's actions rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," he would not have been impeached. Likewise, if those who feel as I do that invading a country without clear hard evidence of a threat and lying about it by fixing the facts were able to convince enough Americans and members of Congress that such a crime did warrant impeachment, then the possibility exists (however remote with the right-wingers in power) that Congress would impeach Bush. Therefore, shouldn't those who feel strongly that Bush should be removed from power, because of is actions in Iraq, at least try to convince as many people as possible that impeachment is appropriate, in the hope (perhaps futile) that Congress will change their minds?

[aikido7]

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- reprinted below -- and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press … nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.


Greg Palast, former columnist for Britain's Guardian papers, is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
Subscribe to his columns at www.GregPalast.com Media requests to contact(at)gregpalast.com Permission to reprint with attribution granted.


[Here it is - the secret smoking gun memo - discovered by the Times of London. - GP]

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

www.google.com

[BillyBob]

:yawn:

[BillyBob]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to aikido7 again.

:sozo2:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic, this thread is nearly 2 years old. Bush has been re-elected. We are winning the war against terrorism. Yes, I know, the terrorists are still blowing themselves up....but there's no mandating mental health.

Cuba is looking for a few mediocre men. Please go.


:darwinsm:

[aikido7]

May 1st--
Top-Secret memo revealed in London: Bush "fixed the facts" to make the case for war. Memo published in its entirety in Great Britian.

DAY TWO--Most Americans clueless, while memo published around the world.

DAY THREE--In America, Laura Bush makes a joke about her husband masturbating a horse.

DAY FIVE--The Runaway Bride turns up wearing a blanket over her head.

DAY SIX--Paula Abdul returns to work, keeps eyes straight ahead.

DAY EIGHT--"Desperate Housewives" surpasses HBO's "Deadwood" in national popularity poll.

DAY FOURTEEN--British memo story breaks nationally. Check behind the obiturary section underneath the gardening tips. Page 27. The little one there... Yeah, that's it.

[BillyBob]

DAY FIFTEEN- Aikido is still a babbling commie. :yawn:

[aikido7]

DAY FIFTEEN- Aikido is still a babbling commie. :yawn:

Hmmm. I wonder who could be your role model on political "attack" strategy?

Maybe that's why it's good to come down on a magazine instead of fessing up to attitudes and actions that prevent our headway in the War on Terror....






KARL Rove makes his MARX

[Frank Ernest]

Top Secret memo ... skip ...
Right-Wing conspiracy ... skip ...
Must ... impeach ... Bush ... skip ...

:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Hmmm. I wonder who could be your role model on political "attack" strategy?
Nicolo Machiavelli.

Maybe that's why it's good to come down on a magazine instead of fessing up to attitudes and actions that prevent our headway in the War on Terror....
It's a two-pronged attack. We defeat the foreign terrorists on their own ground and vote out the domestic terrorists (Democrats) on our home ground.





KARL Rove makes his MARX
:yawn:

[Delmar]

I'm having trouble reping but keep up the battle Frank:up:

[Frank Ernest]

No problema! Have some points, Del. :D

[Frank Ernest]

:sozo2:
Just spread some points on :aikido:7 for ya. :darwinsm:

Problema solucionado!

[aikido7]

Top Secret memo ... skip ...
Right-Wing conspiracy ... skip ...
Must ... impeach ... Bush ... skip ...
:darwinsm:
...skip directly to FauxNews.
Just spread some points on :aikido:7 for ya. :darwinsm:
Problema solucionado!
When confronted with the facts, the best defense is to make stuff up and do it loudly. Keep those doggies Rovin' !!!

http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/

[Frank Ernest]

...skip directly to FauxNews.
What's wrong with the Castro News Network (CNN)?

When confronted with the facts, the best defense is to make stuff up and do it loudly. Keep those doggies Rovin' !!!
You and :skeptic: do that a lot.

http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/
:Commie:

[BillyBob]

:chuckle:

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Even if tomorrow Iraq became the most freedom-loving and democratic nation the world has ever known, this still would not justify the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, not to mention our brave, but misguided, troops Bush sent there.

That's your opinion, skeptic. I respect your opinion, and your right to it, but I disagree.

What do you think could have justified Bush's invasion....

Bush's decision and Congress' authorization.

Skeptic, the big problem here is that your objections to Bush were formulated long before the invasion of Iraq. Or, as a friend of mine rather elegantly put it....

2000: "Bush stole the election! Impeach him!"

2001: "Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened! Impeach him!"

2002: "Bush illegally invaded Afghanistan! Impeach him!"

2003: "Bush illegally invaded Iraq! Impeach him!"

2004: "Bush lied about WMDs! Impeach him!"

2005: "Bush stole the election again! Bush is torturing prisoners in Gitmo! Bush flushed Korans down the toilet! Bush manipulated intelligence to justify invading Iraq! (Come on already! One of these things has to stick eventually! Why isn't it working?) Impeach him!"

It's the exact same things the Republicans did to Clinton--and it's root cause is also exactly the same: the rush to shout "impeachment" is not based in standards of "right and wrong," but power politics.

Skeptic, that's not a game I play.

Justin

[BillyBob]

Bush never obstructed justice, got fined almost a million dollars and was disbarred for it.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand.........

[Skeptic]

That's your opinion, skeptic. I respect your opinion, and your right to it, but I disagree. Why do you disagree?

Bush's decision and Congress' authorization. You think Bush's invasion was justified merely because that's what he decided, and a duped Congress gave the green light? You know very well that when people ask whether the invasion was justified, most are NOT talking about whether Bush was within his Constitutional right to decide what he did. Rather, they are asking whether the invasion was a just war -- not legally just, but ethically.

Skeptic, the big problem here is that your objections to Bush were formulated long before the invasion of Iraq. Or, as a friend of mine rather elegantly put it....

2000: "Bush stole the election! Impeach him!" Bush may have stolen that election, but I have never said this was grounds for impeachment.

2001: "Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened! Impeach him!" I never said this, and I don't believe it.

2002: "Bush illegally invaded Afghanistan! Impeach him!" I never said this, and I don't believe it.

2003: "Bush illegally invaded Iraq! Impeach him!"

2004: "Bush lied about WMDs! Impeach him!" Many legal scholars think that Bush's invasion violated international law. If Clinton had been the one to order the invasion, in the absence of hard evidence of a threat, and lied (fixed the facts) to support his policy, a Republican controlled Congress might well have succeeded in initiating hearings to explore impeachment over that. After all, you agreed that Clinton's actual impeachment was primarily about power politics! Whoever has the power can impeach a President.

2005: "Bush stole the election again! Bush is torturing prisoners in Gitmo! Bush flushed Korans down the toilet! I never said these things.

Bush manipulated intelligence to justify invading Iraq! (Come on already! One of these things has to stick eventually! Why isn't it working?) Impeach him!" And if Bush DID manipulate intelligence (fixed the facts) to justify invading Iraq, would you feel differently about having such a President in the White House? Shouldn't there be a mechanism to remove a President who is willing to commit such a fraud?

It's the exact same things the Republicans did to Clinton--and it's root cause is also exactly the same: the rush to shout "impeachment" is not based in standards of "right and wrong," but power politics. If impeachment is supposed to be based upon standards of "right and wrong," rather than power politics, then why shouldn't the reasons for Bush's order to invade Iraq be thoroughly investigated, given the fact that there is evidence suggesting Bush and company did something wrong (fixed the facts) that unnecessarily cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children simply to fulfill a policy goal? And, if a determination is made that Bush's actions were wrong, wouldn't this be a better reason to pursue impeachment than power politics?

Don't you agree that the primary reason a Republican controlled Congress has not done a thorough investigation and considered possible impeachment is power politics? Those with the power to control the agenda in Congress happen to agree with Bush's policies! If they didn't, heads would roll. Right?

[Skeptic]

Bush never obstructed justice ... Oh, it's not OK to lie about sex under oath, after having been set up by folks who were hoping he would lie, but it IS OK to lie to Congress and the American people about the reasons for starting a war with another relatively defenseless country, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process?
:doh:

[Frank Ernest]

Oh, it's not OK to lie about sex under oath, after having been set up by folks who were hoping he would lie, but it IS OK to lie to Congress and the American people about the reasons for starting a war with another relatively defenseless country, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process?
:doh:
[:cow:]
Clinton lied, but it's ok because he was the victim of a right-wing conspiracy. -skip-
Bush lied to and duped Congress and the American people. That's not ok. -skip-
Tens of thousands of innocents killed. (Number is down from 100,000.) -skip-
You're getting drowsy. -skip-
Sleepy. -skip- [/:cow:]
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. :sleep:

[BillyBob]

Oh, it's not OK to lie about sex under oath,

Obviously, that is why Clinton was fined and disbarred, he obstructed the justice for Paula Jones.

after having been set up by folks who were hoping he would lie,

:darwinsm: Clinton was a rapist and lied about it, nobody made him do either.

but it IS OK to lie to Congress and the American people about the reasons for starting a war with another relatively defenseless country,

Which lie did Bush tell?

killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process?
:doh:

:yawn:

[BillyBob]

Hey Skeppie, when you commit a crime, do you blame someone else for it? Do you claim that someone else made you do it?

Of course you do.........:doh:

[On Fire]

Septic, your posts would carry a lot more weight if you were posting from your laptop on the sunny shores of Havana.

[aikido7]

Hey Skeppie, when you commit a crime, do you blame someone else for it? Do you claim that someone else made you do it?Hey there, when you take a nation to war under false pretenses, do you blame your bad intellignece for the decision? Do you claim that the country itself made you declare war and you had no other choice?

What happens if it is discovered later in writing that it was your intention to declare war and then "fix" the intelligence to justify it? Does a tree make a noise when it falls in the forest and no media is around to hear it?



Do not--repeat--do not argue the facts. You have a wide selection of smilies for your answer. Use them!

[simply one]

Which lie did Bush tell?


Every reason he said he had for invading Iraq:

1. WMDs - oops, they did not have any! :doh:
2. Al Queda (sp?) connections - oops, no terrorists in Iraq (besides Saddam) before we arrived and completely destabilized the country and put our soliders even closer to the Muslim heartland. :doh:
3. Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US - so, let me get this straight, the crazed leader of a 3rd World country thats halfway around the globe from the US and has zero WMDs poses an imminent threat... hmm... :doh:
4. Liberate the Iraqi people - always a nice thought, but its been 2+ years and we STILL haven't restored stability in the country, with dozens of Iraqis killed everyday. ALSO, if this is the justification, then why not invade, say, CHINA or SYRIA or IRAN or CUBA, or any number of other countries. :confused:

Basically the reason was because this administration is all about the :greedy: :greedy: :greedy:

One last question, what is worse:

-lying about having sex with another adult?

OR

-lying about invading a soveriegn state, against international mandates, and getting tens of thousands of people killed (Iraqi civilians and American soldiers/contractors)?

-----

peace, love, unity

[BillyBob]

Hey there, when you take a nation to war under false pretenses, do you blame your bad intellignece for the decision?

What false pretense? [Don't make me dig up the Iraqi War Resolution (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18846) again]

Do you claim that the country itself made you declare war and you had no other choice?

There was ten years of other choices tried, commie.



What happens if it is discovered later in writing that it was your intention to declare war and then "fix" the intelligence to justify it?

What happens if it is discovered that you are a commie?



Does a tree make a noise when it falls in the forest and no media is around to hear it?


Does a commie make noise when he get's *****-slapped even if no moderator is there to hear him?

[simply one]

Do you have any weapons of reason to back yourself up or when you are backed into a corner, to you resort to name-calling?

its a rhetorical question.

-----

peace, love, unity

[BillyBob]

Every reason he said he had for invading Iraq:

Oh, you mean these: Iraqi War Resolution (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18846)



1. WMDs - oops, they did not have any! :doh:

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people he killed with WMD.


2. Al Queda (sp?) connections - oops, no terrorists in Iraq (besides Saddam) before we arrived and completely destabilized the country and put our soliders even closer to the Muslim heartland. :doh:

Tell that to the 9-11 Commission who verified Saddam had ties with Al Queda. But Al Queda isn't the only terrorist organization, Sadfdam had his own thing going on.


3. Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US - so, let me get this straight, the crazed leader of a 3rd World country thats halfway around the globe from the US and has zero WMDs poses an imminent threat... hmm... :doh:

Bush said he was going to remove Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat.


4. Liberate the Iraqi people - always a nice thought, but its been 2+ years and we STILL haven't restored stability in the country, with dozens of Iraqis killed everyday. ALSO, if this is the justification, then why not invade, say, CHINA or SYRIA or IRAN or CUBA, or any number of other countries. :confused:

The Iraqi's just held a free election a few months ago, perhaps you were sleeping and missed it.



Basically the reason was because this administration is all about the :greedy: :greedy: :greedy:

:darwinsm:

Looks like we have a new commie at TOL. :Commie:



One last question, what is worse:

-lying about having sex with another adult?

That is not what Clinton did.




OR

-lying about invading a soveriegn state, against international mandates, and getting tens of thousands of people killed (Iraqi civilians and American soldiers/contractors)?


That's not what Bush did.

Get your facts straight then get back to us, commie.

[simply one]

I don't have time for a full-fledged reply, but on one point, I said STABILITY not GOVERNMENT. The two are not synonomous. STABILITY means having electricity, utilities, food/water, and security, which in fact have NOT been restored.

-----

peace, love, unity

[BillyBob]

They weren't there before we went into Iraq. Saddam kept most of Iraq in the dark and backward while he continued to buy palaces funded by Kofi Annan's Oil-for-Palaces Program.

Don't waste your time with a full fledged reply, we've already seen what they look like.....:darwinsm:

[aikido7]

They weren't there before we went into Iraq. Saddam kept most of Iraq in the dark and backward while he continued to buy palaces funded by Kofi Annan's Oil-for-Palaces Program. The war destroyed Iraq. Why do you think there's so much "progress" there touted by the conservative bloc? They have less electricity and maybe less water than they had before. If Bush hadn't been so intent on this fiasco all those buildings and public works and facilities would still be there. Maybe even without Saddam.

Bush and most of us are totally ignorant about Iraq as well as the middle east. Before we shocked and awed thousands and thousands of civilians--some of whom even possessed sacred life-- Iraq had one of the premier educational and medical care systems in the Middle East.

Twenty-five Iraq students, in fact, left for the United States last year on Fulbright scholarships--which were finally re-instated after the program was destroyed by American bombing.

[Skeptic]

Septic, your posts would carry a lot more weight if you were posting from your laptop on the sunny shores of Havana. Actually, I was on the sunny shores of Havana on the day Bush launched his unnecessary, bloody, immoral invasion of Iraq. I was watching CNN in the bar of a seaside Havana hotel and was dumbfounded why I saw ZERO presentation of viewpoints from those who opposed the invasion. There were a few occasional brief views of protesters from a distance, but that was it! No opposing commentary from anyone in Congress (Dems or Reps), foreign leaders, ... nothing!

Most people in Cuba hate Castro, and think Bush is a dangerous idiot. I tend to agree with both sentiments.

[On Fire]

The war destroyed Iraq.
Please. I heard in church that they were holding baptisms in one of Sadam's pools.

[On Fire]

Actually, I was on the sunny shores of Havana...
Three words: One Way Ticket.

[Skeptic]

Which lie did Bush tell? That Iraq posed a serious and urgent threat.

[aikido7]

The Iraqi's just held a free election a few months ago, perhaps you were sleeping and missed it.

...from 1967....

U.S. ENCOURAGED BY VIETNAM VOTE
———
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
———
By PETER GROSE
Special to The New York Times
______

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3—United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. . . .
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.

[On Fire]

How do you tell if a threat is serious and urgent?

[BillyBob]

Three words: One Way Ticket.

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

The war destroyed Iraq. Why do you think there's so much "progress" there touted by the conservative bloc? They have less electricity and maybe less water than they had before. If Bush hadn't been so intent on this fiasco all those buildings and public works and facilities would still be there. Maybe even without Saddam.

Bush and most of us are totally ignorant about Iraq as well as the middle east. Before we shocked and awed thousands and thousands of civilians--some of whom even possessed sacred life-- Iraq had one of the premier educational and medical care systems in the Middle East.

Twenty-five Iraq students, in fact, left for the United States last year on Fulbright scholarships--which were finally re-instated after the program was destroyed by American bombing.

Iraq's power plants are generating between 3,900 and 5,000 megawatts of electricity per day, surpassing the pre-war level.

[BillyBob]

...from 1967....

U.S. ENCOURAGED BY VIETNAM VOTE
———
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
———
By PETER GROSE
Special to The New York Times
______

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3—United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. . . .
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.


All the more reason for the US forces to stay in Iraq, unlike it did in Vietnam.

[BillyBob]

That Iraq posed a serious and urgent threat.

After ten years of Saddam ignoring and defying UN Resolutions and restrictions left over from the 1991 Gulf War, it was time to finish him off.

[aikido7]

Iraq's power plants are generating between 3,900 and 5,000 megawatts of electricity per day, surpassing the pre-war level.The output of this generaion is sporadic at best. And no one had to depend on generators for electricity then, either.Please. I heard in church that they were holding baptisms in one of Sadam's pools.We guarded the Ministry of Oil, grabbed and occupied all the palaces, let the mobs destroy Baghdad, bombed and destroyed most of the country's infrastructure, while a few lucky soldiers got to swim, frolick and urinate in Sadam's pools. And hey--a great opportunity for some good old fashion immersion baptism came up once in awhile, too.All the more reason for the US forces to stay in Iraq, unlike it did in Vietnam.Stay where you shouldn't be, don't belong and aren't welcomed and things will turn out splendidly.

[BillyBob]

The output of this generaion is sporadic at best. And no one had to depend on generators for electricity then, either.

This is from March 2004 and it shows that you were wrong even then.

ELECTRICITY

Iraq's power plants are generating between 3,900 and 5,000 megawatts of electricity per day, surpassing the pre-war level. The goal of rehabilitation efforts is to reach 6,000 megawatts by this summer, and 9,000 by the summer of 2005. Rehabilitation work continues at two main thermal power plants: Doura in Baghdad and Baiji in northern Iraq. Three new power plants are under construction at Kirkuk, Mussayyib and South Baghdad. Work is underway to rebuild about 127 miles of the 400-kilovolt transmission network from Az Zubayr, on the southern coast, north to Nasiriyah.

[aikido7]

This is from March 2004 and it shows that you were wrong even then.

ELECTRICITY

Iraq's power plants are generating between 3,900 and 5,000 megawatts of electricity per day, surpassing the pre-war level. The goal of rehabilitation efforts is to reach 6,000 megawatts by this summer, and 9,000 by the summer of 2005. Rehabilitation work continues at two main thermal power plants: Doura in Baghdad and Baiji in northern Iraq. Three new power plants are under construction at Kirkuk, Mussayyib and South Baghdad. Work is underway to rebuild about 127 miles of the 400-kilovolt transmission network from Az Zubayr, on the southern coast, north to Nasiriyah.The output of this generaion is sporadic at best. And no one had to depend on generators for electricity then, either.

[BillyBob]

The output of this generaion is sporadic at best. And no one had to depend on generators for electricity then, either.

ELECTRICITY

Iraq's power plants are generating between 3,900 and 5,000 megawatts of electricity per day, surpassing the pre-war level. The goal of rehabilitation efforts is to reach 6,000 megawatts by this summer, and 9,000 by the summer of 2005. Rehabilitation work continues at two main thermal power plants: Doura in Baghdad and Baiji in northern Iraq. Three new power plants are under construction at Kirkuk, Mussayyib and South Baghdad. Work is underway to rebuild about 127 miles of the 400-kilovolt transmission network from Az Zubayr, on the southern coast, north to Nasiriyah.

[Frank Ernest]

...from 1967....

U.S. ENCOURAGED BY VIETNAM VOTE
———
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
———
By PETER GROSE
Special to The New York Times
______

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3—United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. . . .
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.
Then you anti-war :Commie:s went to work and screwed over your own President, thereby setting the stage for Richard Nixon's election. :darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

How do you tell if a threat is serious and urgent? Why bother? After all, simply suspecting that a country poses a threat, based on unsupported stories of defectors, should be sufficient grounds to invade and bomb the hell out of them! Right? So what that tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children are likely to die in such a preventive war. What matters is that America is kept safe by striking first, before any suspected threat becomes imminent.

It's that barbaric mentality of preemption which is one reason the U.S. is currently hated so much in the world.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[simply one]

This is from March 2004 and it shows that you were wrong even then.

ELECTRICITY

Iraq's power plants are generating between 3,900 and 5,000 megawatts of electricity per day, surpassing the pre-war level. The goal of rehabilitation efforts is to reach 6,000 megawatts by this summer, and 9,000 by the summer of 2005. Rehabilitation work continues at two main thermal power plants: Doura in Baghdad and Baiji in northern Iraq. Three new power plants are under construction at Kirkuk, Mussayyib and South Baghdad. Work is underway to rebuild about 127 miles of the 400-kilovolt transmission network from Az Zubayr, on the southern coast, north to Nasiriyah.


1) I love how you dont give the source(s).

2) Do you have anything more than just one source to back it up? Are you in Iraq now checking power output? Are you checking that everyone is getting power.

Just because that much energy is produced (which I HIGHLY doubt), it does not mean that it is reaching the places it is needed most - homes and businesses. There are numerous breakdowns of transformers and equipment, power lines are being constantly stolen and harvested for copper, and power for the average Iraqi, even in cities, is sporadic at best.

Want to know where I found this info? Read/listen to something besides FAUXNEWS and Defense Department Propaganda.

-----

peace, love, equality

[BillyBob]

1) I love how you dont give the source(s).

I give sources all the time. Just because you are new around here doesn't mean you have a clue about what is normal at TOL, junior.

Here ya go: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040316-iraq-rebuilding.htm



2) Do you have anything more than just one source to back it up?

I don't need one, Aikido keeps reposting the same thing so I am doing the same. Sorry that humor is beyond your scope.....

Are you in Iraq now checking power output?

Are you?

Are you checking that everyone is getting power.

Are you?



Just because that much energy is produced (which I HIGHLY doubt),

Yes, that would not help you perpetuate your commie agenda, would it?



it does not mean that it is reaching the places it is needed most - homes and businesses.

According to who??

There are numerous breakdowns of transformers and equipment, power lines are being constantly stolen and harvested for copper, and power for the average Iraqi, even in cities, is sporadic at best.

But it was worse while Saddam was in power, which is the :sozo: WHOLE FRIGGIN' POINT!!!!!!


Want to know where I found this info?

Sure.

Read/listen to something besides FAUXNEWS and Defense Department Propaganda.


:Commie:

[aikido7]

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

"This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents."

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action...the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

Just for a minute, forget the peculiar straw poll results, an administration asleep cradling a book about goats and the bin Ladens before 9/11, etc.. Ignorance and immorality and arrogance are shameful but not impeachable.

[aikido7]

But it was worse while Saddam was in power, which is the :sozo: WHOLE FRIGGIN' POINT!!!!!!A leader and his family who were unquestioned, country in ruins and disarray, thousands killed, innocent people imprisoned and tortured...

yeah--good point!

[Frank Ernest]

I am always amazed at how the :Commie:s retrieve these super-secret government documents with such ease. Of course the super-secret documents ALWAYS support the :Commie: claims, the big one being that anything to the political right of Josef Stalin is evil.

Lie-berals do not want freedom. They want their own version of Saddam Hussein to run America. They want a defenseless America subject to the whims of North Korea, China and European socialists who seek to rape America's wealth and enslave her people. That is what unilateral disarmament, global warming, United Nations, etc. are all about - making productive and compassionate America into a slave state for the non-productive, greedy elitists of the rest of the world.

You little :Commie:s and :Commie: :loser: wannabes can follow your Satanic Majesty to the dystopic Hell you would like the create for the rest of us. I'm not going there, I'm not riding in your car, and I'm not buying your gas either. Gag on your own lying bile while you're at it.

[simply one]

Isn't it always so much easier to put down others than to make a valid point yourself? Since you are unable to respond to the truth, you simply hide behind rrogance and insults. Also, note: If ANY party wants to turn America into a state of dictatorship, its the neo-cons. They are the ones slashing the rights of Americans, misleading the country with their "intelligence" and pissing off the rest of the friggin world. Earth is a BIG place and we can't separate ourselves from the other 6 billion humans on this rock.

-----

peace, love, equality

[BillyBob]

Isn't it always so much easier to put down others than to make a valid point yourself?

Frank made a very valid point. Putting down commies like Aikido and yourself is just the icing on the cake! :devil:

Since you are unable to respond to the truth, you simply hide behind rrogance and insults.

Depends on the poster we are responding to. Aikido had his day when we would actually attempt to engage him in a conversation but it proved to be an execise in futility. I can see the same thing happening to you if you don't stop whining and start actually posting something worth responding to.


Also, note: If ANY party wants to turn America into a state of dictatorship, its the neo-cons. They are the ones slashing the rights of Americans, misleading the country with their "intelligence" and pissing off the rest of the friggin world.

Clinton, Kerry, Gore etc. all had the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion. Do a little research, junior, it will save you some embarrassment.


Earth is a BIG place and we can't separate ourselves from the other 6 billion humans on this rock.


Spoken like a true commie. :Commie:

[BillyBob]

I am always amazed at how the :Commie:s retrieve these super-secret government documents with such ease. Of course the super-secret documents ALWAYS support the :Commie: claims, the big one being that anything to the political right of Josef Stalin is evil.

Lie-berals do not want freedom. They want their own version of Saddam Hussein to run America. They want a defenseless America subject to the whims of North Korea, China and European socialists who seek to rape America's wealth and enslave her people. That is what unilateral disarmament, global warming, United Nations, etc. are all about - making productive and compassionate America into a slave state for the non-productive, greedy elitists of the rest of the world.

You little :Commie:s and :Commie: :loser: wannabes can follow your Satanic Majesty to the dystopic Hell you would like the create for the rest of us. I'm not going there, I'm not riding in your car, and I'm not buying your gas either. Gag on your own lying bile while you're at it.

Points for that one Frank, as soon as I can! :banana:

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by On Fire

How do you tell if a threat is serious and urgent? That's a question that Bush and company didn't bother to answer either. In all likelihood, they didn't even care if the threat was serious and urgent. Remember, they wanted to start a war before the threat became serious and urgent. Therefore, they made a case for war using not the facts as that were, but the hearsay from defectors, and tried to fix the facts to support their preconceived policy.

Of course, the real answer to how to tell if a threat is serious and urgent is to identify clear, hard, empirical evidence of WMDs. Only such evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat could justify any preemptive war. When the lives of thousands of innocent people are at stake, preemptive wars in the absence of a significant and imminent threat are not morally justified.

If we had let the UN inspectors continue to do their job, we would have known that such hard evidence was not to be found. It had not been found up to the date Bush invaded, which should have been enough reason not to start a war. But Bush and company kicked out the inspectors, because they were afraid that the lack of hard evidence would hurt their preconceived goal of invading Iraq. The longer the UN inspectors went without finding any hard evidence, the harder it would have been to justify waging Bush's preemptive war. If the inspectors had actually found hard evidence of WMD, then preemption might have been more justified. But Bush didn't want to take the chance of missing out on his opportunity to take Iraq.

[Skeptic]

After ten years of Saddam ignoring and defying UN Resolutions and restrictions left over from the 1991 Gulf War, it was time to finish him off. I don't care if Saddam had ignored and defied UN Resolutions for 100 years! As long as there is no clear, hard, empirical evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, preemptive wars are never justified.

[BillyBob]

Saddam was a terrorist, that's all we needed. But there was more, much more.

Saddam was a Terrorist (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17761&highlight=Saddam+Terrorist)

[Skeptic]

Clinton, Kerry, Gore etc. all had the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion. Do a little research, junior, it will save you some embarrassment. They never came to the conclusion that Iraq was such an imminent threat that a preemptive war was necessary.

I suspect that, as soon as Bush took office in 2000, his Pentagon/CIA buddies began to fix the facts to support invading Iraq.

See:

Bush Advisers Planned Iraq War Since 1990s (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100102_bush_advisors.html)

Practice to Deceive: Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html)

Just the Beginning: Is Iraq the opening salvo in a war to remake the world? (http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/4/dreyfuss-r.html)

Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000 (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761)

[Morpheus]

I am always amazed at how the :Commie:s retrieve these super-secret government documents with such ease. Of course the super-secret documents ALWAYS support the :Commie: claims, the big one being that anything to the political right of Josef Stalin is evil.

Lie-berals do not want freedom. They want their own version of Saddam Hussein to run America. They want a defenseless America subject to the whims of North Korea, China and European socialists who seek to rape America's wealth and enslave her people. That is what unilateral disarmament, global warming, United Nations, etc. are all about - making productive and compassionate America into a slave state for the non-productive, greedy elitists of the rest of the world.

You little :Commie:s and :Commie: :loser: wannabes can follow your Satanic Majesty to the dystopic Hell you would like the create for the rest of us. I'm not going there, I'm not riding in your car, and I'm not buying your gas either. Gag on your own lying bile while you're at it.You must be one of the dumbest dumb people I've ever met. You honestly can't see that globalization is a US business invention that, in your words, turns the world into a slave state for the non-productive, greedy elitists of the US. Your buddy Bush is just plowing the ground for them.

[Skeptic]

Saddam was a terrorist, that's all we needed. No, that's NOT all we need.

Even if you want to call Saddam a "terrorist" (which is a misapplication of the term), simply because the leader of a country is a "terrorist," this does not justify bloody preemptive wars against such countries in the absence of clear, hard evidence of an imminent threat.

Terrorism has been with us for a very long time. And we've had WMDs in the world for a very long time. Terrorists have attacked the U.S. in one way or another for a very long time. Now that a relatively small group of terrorists get really lucky and successfully fly planes into buildings, killing about 3000 people in one day, this does not mean that we all of a sudden have to have a new all out "war on terrorism" that involves preemptive wars against countries who we merely suspect are a terrorist threat. Preemptive wars in the absence of an imminent threat were wrong before this so-called "war on terrorism" and they are wrong during the "war on terrorism." I'm sorry, but terrorists have always been around and they always will be around. And there will never be a time when it is morally justified to prevent terrorist threats by waging preemptive wars against "terrorist" nations that are not clearly a significant and imminent threat.

You might not like my moral stance on this issue. So be it. Feel free to have your own. I, for one, will never agree that it's OK to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children in another country in order to protect the lives of thousands of innocent American men, women and children, simply because our leaders suspect that a "terrorist" nation might someday pose a real and significant threat, if we don't preemptively kill them first. If there is no clear, hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, we are just going to have to take our chances, until hard evidence of such a threat materializes.

[On Fire]

How many days since Bush was elected (and not impeached)?

[aikido7]

I am always amazed at how the :Commie:s retrieve these super-secret government documents with such ease. Of course the super-secret documents ALWAYS support the :Commie: claims, the big one being that anything to the political right of Josef Stalin is evil.

Lie-berals do not want freedom. They want their own version of Saddam Hussein to run America. They want a defenseless America subject to the whims of North Korea, China and European socialists who seek to rape America's wealth and enslave her people. That is what unilateral disarmament, global warming, United Nations, etc. are all about - making productive and compassionate America into a slave state for the non-productive, greedy elitists of the rest of the world.

You little :Commie:s and :Commie: :loser: wannabes can follow your Satanic Majesty to the dystopic Hell you would like the create for the rest of us. I'm not going there, I'm not riding in your car, and I'm not buying your gas either. Gag on your own lying bile while you're at it.I am thankful for people working under the powers and principalities of this world are still able to effect enough transformation of their character to defy those powers and start taking their responsiblity seriously to Divine Law. We have been told that all that is hidden will be revealed. This is just the way God works through history. We should never be afraid of what the truth is, wherever it leads us.

All the whims, enslavements and greed we fear could be unacknowledged demons we assign to others. It was Jesus who gave us the earliest known teaching of what modern psychology calls "projection" in his "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye...?" teaching. Our first instinct is to say "I may be somewhat bad (a speck) but those people are really bad (the log)." Jesus is inviting us to use our enemy as a gift--to enable us to see things in ourselves we cannot see any other way.

When we are able to develop an objective rage at our enemies' injustices and still see them as children of God, we have a shot at helping them recover their own humanity.

[Skeptic]

How many days since Bush was elected (and not impeached)? How many days have the Righties been in control of Congress, after hoodwinking the American public again in the last election? If the Righties were not in power, we would have had the necessary investigations and Bush might very well have been impeached by now.

[Frank Ernest]

I am thankful for people working under the powers and principalities of this world are still able to effect enough transformation of their character to defy those powers and start taking their responsiblity seriously to Divine Law. We have been told that all that is hidden will be revealed. This is just the way God works through history. We should never be afraid of what the truth is, wherever it leads us.

All the whims, enslavements and greed we fear could be unacknowledged demons we assign to others. It was Jesus who gave us the earliest known teaching of what modern psychology calls "projection" in his "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye...?" teaching. Our first instinct is to say "I may be somewhat bad (a speck) but those people are really bad (the log)." Jesus is inviting us to use our enemy as a gift--to enable us to see things in ourselves we cannot see any other way.

When we are able to develop an objective rage at our enemies' injustices and still see them as children of God, we have a shot at helping them recover their own humanity.
:darwinsm: You took a couple of Bible verses and constructed a whole secular humanist "religion" out of of it. Congrats, :loser:!

[BillyBob]

How many days have the Righties been in control of Congress, after hoodwinking the American public again in the last election? If the Righties were not in power, we would have had the necessary investigations and Bush might very well have been impeached by now.

:baby:

[Frank Ernest]

How many days have the Righties been in control of Congress, after hoodwinking the American public again in the last election? If the Righties were not in power, we would have had the necessary investigations and Bush might very well have been impeached by now.
:darwinsm: you have had the "necessary" investigations ad nauseam and still came up :loser:s.

[BillyBob]

They never came to the conclusion that Iraq was such an imminent threat that a preemptive war was necessary.

"If you don't think Saddam is a threat with Nuclear Weapons, you shouldn't vote for me". -John Kerry Campaigning for President

[Skeptic]

"If you don't think Saddam is a threat with Nuclear Weapons, you shouldn't vote for me". -John Kerry Campaigning for President Like I said, he never came to the conclusion that Iraq was such an imminent threat that a preemptive war was necessary. Bush and company largely hoodwinked Congress, but some members, including Kerry, were wise enough to realize that the evidence did not warrant a preemptive war.

[BillyBob]

If ever there was a good reason to invade a country it would be if it's rogue dictator had nuclear weapons, just a s Kerry believed. [Saddam retained part of his nuclear facilities] To not remove Saddam from power would have been irresponsible.

Are you accusing Kerry of irresponsibility and inaction, Skeptic? Are you saying that Kerry would have failed the American people by not disarming a know terrorist?

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: You took a couple of Bible verses and constructed a whole secular humanist "religion" out of of it. Congrats, :loser:!Those verses, I believe, are pretty pivotal in establishing a "voice print" of Jesus. And his unique "love your enemy" stance goes even further, don't you think?

But back to the subject at hand, I would guess that since speaking truth to power is a decidely Christian act, religion is exactly what the world is waiting for. "Secular human" concerns seem incompatible with spirit and faith, though--but perhaps that is the best soil available for sowing the seeds.

Lately, world events have been confirming the practicality of Jesus' message. The sarcasm would be delicious if it were not so bitter. Earnest theologians have been earnestly persuading ernest believers for some sixteen centuries that the gospel supports violence. Meanwhile, massive outpourings of people in one supposedly "atheist" country after another continue to demonstrate Jesus' nonviolent teachings as a means to freedom.

Come quickly!

[simply one]

Even if you want to call Saddam a "terrorist" (which is a misapplication of the term), simply because the leader of a country is a "terrorist," this does not justify bloody preemptive wars against such countries in the absence of clear, hard evidence of an imminent threat.

Terrorism (according to the Department of Justice) is: "...the unlawful use of force or violence comitted by a group or individual against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Therefore, Saddam was NOT a terrorist. He was a cruel, murdering dictator, like many others in the world, and around the world. Saddam did NOT use force or violence against Americans since the Gulf War, and that was AFTER we attacked. So, justifying the war in Iraq by calling Saddam a terrorist is completely innacurate.


You might not like my moral stance on this issue. So be it. Feel free to have your own. I, for one, will never agree that it's OK to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children in another country in order to protect the lives of thousands of innocent American men, women and children, simply because our leaders suspect that a "terrorist" nation might someday pose a real and significant threat, if we don't preemptively kill them first. If there is no clear, hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, we are just going to have to take our chances, until hard evidence of such a threat materializes.

I agree completely with this statement. You cannot act on a threat before it materializes. You cannot put a murderer in prison before he has commited a crime. And if you justify the war by saying Saddam murdered his own people (which is true), what about Darfur or any number of other places around the world? If this is the case why isn't the USA on a "Crusade of 'Freedom'"

save your fingers and don't just make a pointless 'commie' comment. Say something pertinent and logical, please.

-----

peace, love, equality

[simply one]

But back to the subject at hand, I would guess that since speaking truth to power is a decidely Christian act, religion is exactly what the world is waiting for. "Secular human" concerns seem incompatible with spirit and faith, though--but perhaps that is the best soil available for sowing the seeds.


What is any religion, besides a system created by humans to address things that they do not understand? (i.e. life, death, war, cruelty, love, etc...)



You took a couple of Bible verses and constructed a whole secular humanist "religion" out of of it. Congrats, !

what is any religion, besides a lense through which the world is viewed, giving order to existence? Plus, conservatives do this ALL the time to justify their actions (taking only a few verses). What about all the things they have justified about homosexuality, etc?

-----

peace, love, equality

[BillyBob]

Saddam harbored terrorists. He trained terrorists. He funded terrorists. He affiliated with terrorists. He rewarded terrorists. He encouraged terrorists.

Saddam was a terrorist.

[simply one]

Saddam harbored terrorists. He trained terrorists. He funded terrorists. He affiliated with terrorists. He rewarded terrorists. He encouraged terrorists.

Saddam was a terrorist.


Actually, their were less terrorists in Iraq before we invaded than there are now.

1. Saddam did not want radical muslims to undermine his iron grip on the country

2. we pissed the Islamic fundalmentalists off even more by invading, and the US invasion basically destroyed the security of Iraq.

3. Saddam was egocentric and there is proof that he DID NOT fund terrorists, he hoarded money and spent it on himself and palaces.

Saddam was not a terrorist. He was a bad guy. But he was not a terrorist and did not support terrorism.

-----

peace, love, equality

[BillyBob]

Saddam Was A Terrorist (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17761)

[aikido7]

Father knows best--even though Jesus warned us to call no man on earth our father.

We were scared, and father knew best.

We were scared, and did not want to question him.

He was our father and we stood up for him because he was our father.

But he's just a president after all. And, come to think of it, he might have made some pretty bad decisions that affected us in harmful ways--ways which we could not recognize then and are just beginning to glimpse now.

[aikido7]

Remember this--just about everything we know about Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship are what the Bush administration has told us.

Can you say "aluminum tubes" or "enriched uranium"? Can you say "weapons of mass deception?"
Can you tie the 9/11 attacks to the invasion of Iraq by saying "Saddam is a terrorist"?

[Skeptic]

Saddam Was A Terrorist (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17761) Regardless, being a terrorist is not enough reason to kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in a preemptive war against a country, in the absence of hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat.

Being a terrorist is not enough. I can repeat this again, if you have trouble remembering.

[Frank Ernest]

Those verses, I believe, are pretty pivotal in establishing a "voice print" of Jesus. And his unique "love your enemy" stance goes even further, don't you think?
No. You've taken His words out of context and misconstrued them to suit your :Commie: politics.

But back to the subject at hand, I would guess that since speaking truth to power is a decidely Christian act, religion is exactly what the world is waiting for. "Secular human" concerns seem incompatible with spirit and faith, though--but perhaps that is the best soil available for sowing the seeds.
Pure :cow: sophistry.

Lately, world events have been confirming the practicality of Jesus' message. The sarcasm would be delicious if it were not so bitter. Earnest theologians have been earnestly persuading ernest believers for some sixteen centuries that the gospel supports violence. Meanwhile, massive outpourings of people in one supposedly "atheist" country after another continue to demonstrate Jesus' nonviolent teachings as a means to freedom.
:darwinsm: I see your departure from reality is almost complete. :cloud9:

Come quickly!
Matthew 24:1-51 Good Luck!

[Frank Ernest]

Regardless, being a terrorist is not enough reason to kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in a preemptive war against a country, in the absence of hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat.
Try selling that one to the Kurds.

Being a terrorist is not enough. I can repeat this again, if you have trouble remembering.
Tell that one to the Israelis. Maybe they remember.
:mock::skeptic:

[Frank Ernest]

What is any religion, besides a system created by humans to address things that they do not understand? (i.e. life, death, war, cruelty, love, etc...)
:darwinsm:

what is any religion, besides a lense through which the world is viewed, giving order to existence? Plus, conservatives do this ALL the time to justify their actions (taking only a few verses). What about all the things they have justified about homosexuality, etc?

-----

peace, love, equality
Huh? Do you babble like this often? :confused:

[BillyBob]

Remember this--just about everything we know about Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship are what the Bush administration has told us.

Uh...yeah....sure. Bill Clinton didn't even know Saddam existed. :rolleyes:


Can you say "aluminum tubes" or "enriched uranium"? Can you say "weapons of mass deception?"
Can you tie the 9/11 attacks to the invasion of Iraq by saying "Saddam is a terrorist"?

Tying the 2 together is unecessary. You've been listening to the liberal spin machine again, commie. If 9-11 never happened, Bush still had to remove Saddam.

Haven't you heard, Bush had been planning on removing Saddam even before 9-11.

[Delmar]

yup

[simply one]

Saddam Was A Terrorist (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17761)

try not using ultra-conservative journals to support your views, and maybe they will become more credible. As it has been said before, most of the info we have about Saddam comes from the Bush Administration, who have already proven that they are perfectly willing to twist, bend, and manufacture 'intelligence' to fit their needs. Try finding articles stating the connections in either a more independant journal, or a foreign news source, that doesn't have to worry about American politics.

-----

peace, love, equality

[aikido7]

Tying the 2 together is unecessary. You've been listening to the liberal spin machine again, commie. If 9-11 never happened, Bush still had to remove Saddam.It was unnecessary and untruthful, but that did not stop Bush, Cheney, Condi and BillyBob from trying, did it? Moving the goalposts will give you a little more playtime, but the clock is running out.

Bush had to remove Saddam? What was he afraid would happen after 9/11 if he didn't? Bush WANTED to remove him. It was a personal crusade he pulled off using American troops and Iraqi civilians as cover.

And the only way he could pull off his little "gotcha" game was to lie and ignore all uncomfortable truths (those two sound familiar, BB?) and brand anyone who had a different idea as unpatriotic. You're not guilty of that are you? Oh, and many other things--like leaking the lie that Hans Blix was a fool, Kofe Anan was a crook, John Kerry was a coward and David Kay was a child molester.

How many Iraqi children were molested to kingdom come?

[Skeptic]

If ever there was a good reason to invade a country it would be if it's rogue dictator had nuclear weapons, ... Kerry was duped by Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies into believing that Saddam had nukes. However, Kerry had enough sense to question this premise and state that the evidence does not warrant a preemptive war.

Why was Bush more worried about Iraq, about which he had no hard evidence of nukes or WMD, than about North Korea, about which he had far more evidence of nukes and WMD?

Let's see:

N. Korea = rogue dictator + lots of evidence of nukes/WMD = no action
Iraq = rogue dictator + no evidence of nukes/WMD = massive preemptive war

What's wrong with this picture?

To not remove Saddam from power would have been irresponsible. Your focus is misplaced. Of course, it was desirable that Saddam be removed from power. But one does not justifiably remove a rogue dictator from power by ordering a massive preemptive war, knowing full well one has no clear hard evidence that Saddam actually had nukes/WMD, knowing full well that one has no evidence of a significant and imminent threat, and knowing full well that such an order would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children!

For the nth time, killing thousands of innocent people in the hope that this will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a future imminent threat is not morally justifiable!

Are you accusing Kerry of irresponsibility and inaction, Skeptic? Are you saying that Kerry would have failed the American people by not disarming a known terrorist? I am accusing Bush of irresponsibly, unnecessarily and immorally failing the American people, the Iraqi people, and the world by "disarming" a rogue dictator, even though Bush had no hard evidence there existed anything to disarm, justifying the "disarming" by fixing the facts to suit his policy, knowing full well that thousands of innocent men, women and children would die as a result of this alleged "disarming."

[Frank Ernest]

try not using ultra-conservative journals to support your views, and maybe they will become more credible. As it has been said before, most of the info we have about Saddam comes from the Bush Administration, who have already proven that they are perfectly willing to twist, bend, and manufacture 'intelligence' to fit their needs. Try finding articles stating the connections in either a more independant journal, or a foreign news source, that doesn't have to worry about American politics.

-----

peace, love, equality
:darwinsm: BLOTD!

[BillyBob]

try not using ultra-conservative journals to support your views, and maybe they will become more credible. As it has been said before, most of the info we have about Saddam comes from the Bush Administration, who have already proven that they are perfectly willing to twist, bend, and manufacture 'intelligence' to fit their needs. Try finding articles stating the connections in either a more independant journal, or a foreign news source, that doesn't have to worry about American politics.

-----

peace, love, equality


You don't expect ultra left journals like the New York Times to give you any of this info, do you? Maybe Jason Blaire has an article or 2 that you would like to cite. Oh, I bet Dan Rather has something to say about all this.

:darwinsm:

[aikido7]

You don't expect ultra left journals like the New York Times to give you any of this info, do you? Maybe Jason Blaire has an article or 2 that you would like to cite. Oh, I bet Dan Rather has something to say about all this.

:darwinsm:That's right--get off the subject and bash the New York Times and Dan Rather. At least that takes the focus off of Bush's shabby lies about his national guard stint and his immoral war....

You're doing pretty good, but your response/turnaround time could be improved. And don't bother reading other media--Karl Rove will do that for you. Just ride your bike or cut some brush.

[Frank Ernest]

That's right--get off the subject and bash the New York Times and Dan Rather. At least that takes the focus off of Bush's shabby lies about his national guard stint and his immoral war....
:darwinsm: Proper focus is on proven liars, i.e., NYT and Dan Rather.

You're doing pretty good, but your response/turnaround time could be improved. And don't bother reading other media--Karl Rove will do that for you. Just ride your bike or cut some brush.
:darwinsm: Typical elitist :Commie:

[aikido7]

:darwinsm: Proper focus is on proven liars, i.e., NYT and Dan Rather.

:darwinsm: Typical elitist :Commie:

Reread your own post and you can see how it proves my point!!!




Sadly, you will not....

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=817601&page=1
And this was LAST YEAR!!!. I think we were in Iraq then....

[BillyBob]

That's right--get off the subject and bash the New York Times and Dan Rather. At least that takes the focus off of Bush's shabby lies about his national guard stint and his immoral war....

You're doing pretty good, but your response/turnaround time could be improved. And don't bother reading other media--Karl Rove will do that for you. Just ride your bike or cut some brush.


I realize that following a dialogue is a bit above your abilities, commie, but if you go back a few posts you will see that it wasn't I who changed the subject and decided to talk about specific media outlets, it was one of your commie cohorts who did that. Mine was in response to his futile attempts to discredit the source of the truth he would rather ignore.

Now, you were saying????

[Frank Ernest]

Reread your own post and you can see how it proves my point!!!
You don't have a point to prove.

Sadly, you will not....

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=817601&page=1
And this was LAST YEAR!!!. I think we were in Iraq then....
:yawn:

[aikido7]

You don't have a point to prove.:yawn:...Yep--that's my point.:yawn: Boring, ain't it?

Mine was in response to his futile attempts to discredit the source of the truth he would rather ignore.And mine was in response to your futile attempts to discredit the source of the problem you would actually change the subject from!!!

[Skeptic]

Those who believe it is not morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that this will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future imminent threat please raise your hand.

:wave:

Those who believe it is morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that it will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future imminent threat please explain why you believe this.

:geek:

[aikido7]

...give them a chance to check with Karl Rove first, Skeptic!

[simply one]

:wave:

-----

hey :BillyBob:

[Frank Ernest]

...give them a chance to check with Karl Rove first, Skeptic!
The Pointless advises the Liar. :darwinsm:

[aikido7]

Those who believe it is not morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that this will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future imminent threat please raise your hand.

:wave:

Those who believe it is morally justifiable to kill thousands of innocent people in the hope that it will prevent a "terrorist" rogue dictator from becoming a possible future imminent threat please explain why you believe this.

:geek:

Hmmm....

[BillyBob]

:yawn: