Supporting terrorists is not a threat? Making terrorist attacks DIRECTLY against the U.S. (and thankfully failing) isn't a threat? Okay, let's just say we agree to disagree about what constitutes a threat...

You mean kow-tow to the media? Gee, no politician I've ever heard of does stuff like that. That Bush is a MONSTER!!! :rolleyes:

Ooooh. Scary. See above (And I'm one of the people who believe they pushed too hard - the idealist in me thinks they shouldn't have to "win" us over - they should do what they think they need to do and deal with unhappiness later, but then again, more support at home = more money = fewer dead American troops, so the realist in me trumps the idealist in this case).

Let's ignore all of the overwhelming evidence that I suspect you'd shut your eyes/ears to and scream "la la la la la la" at the top of your lungs until it's removed (apologies if you're NOT one of those nuts, but so far you're feeding me their lines, and they just don't fly), and look at that statement. Have you EVER believed something to be true and then found out it wasn't? Did you ever believe in Santa Claws, R. Cook? Are you a liar because you told other kids he existed? Has a magician ever pulled a slight of hand trick on you, and asked which hand he held a coin in? Were you a liar when you said it must be in one or the other, since you never saw him put it away? Was every human being on Earth telling lies at one time when they said the Earth was flat? Or when they said the Sun revolved around the Earth? Einstein was a liar, according to you, because much of what he believed to be true about the universe ended up being false when new evidence arose. Heck, you're a liar because you made that ludicrous statement about what contitutes a lie without any evidence for it, aren't you?

Unless you can somehow resolve those situations with your flimsy and hastily-tacked-on definition of what a lie is (that doesn't conform to ANY dictionary's definition, I'd expect), your definition is false. Either you're trying to deceive me, or you're just deceiving yourself.

Just because you ignore evidence doesn't mean it does't exist, Mr. Cook. Try to make arguments that conform to those rules, otherwise you're wasting our time. Was that evidence too circumstantial for you? Not valid enough? Too flimsy? Fine, then say so. Just don't presume to tell me that there's NO evidence when it's plainly been trotted out.

Actually, no. You're throwing about rhetoric. That's hardly lying, even given the rather silly definition of "lying" that you're trying, unsucessfully, to pawn off on me. Politicians who spew rhetoric? Again, what a monster... yawn...

Again, what evidence do you have that these beliefs are false? You (well, not you - you personally haven't made this egregious error, but I suspect it's coming when the tables are turned) love to trot out the old "you can't prove a negative" without fully understanding it, but have no problem insisting your opponents do the impossible. Unless you can magically provide some, there is no proof that those beliefs were false.

Grave and calamitous action? I'll have to remember that one. Remember when Hitler got his ass kicked? What a grave and calamitous action. Remember trying to feed those people in Somalia - oh, that was a grave and calamitous action. You love to pour it on thick, don't you? Spare us the drama queen act, please. I'd rather see facts and figures and good arguments, not this "rhetoric" that's so bad when it's coming from your opponents but is perfectly acceptable when you spew it.

Bwa-hahaha! That's good. How does honoring somebody for a doing a commendable job (not my judgment of him, but at least I admit that I'm not qualified to judge. By all means, lower your credibility by passing judgement on all kinds of people whose jobs you're not qualified to evaluate, though, I won't try too hard to stop you) prove that you're a liar? You've left the logic boat long ago in your post, and you're swimming the seas of unfounded rhetoric and daft accusations. I'd throw you a life preserver, but it looks like you're intent on clutching that anchor until you sink out of site. Bon voyage!

Yet, you need no proof whatsoever to back your ludicrous assumptions? Awesome. Nice to see the standards are different, as long as you're completely unwilling to make an objective argument. Good job there.

Why not? Both have done some great work, and some truly shitty work. Hell, so did Einstein - according to you're logic, he should be reviled because he wasn't irrefutably correct every single time he opened his mouth.

And you're saying this because... lol... you BELIEVE IT! So you're just proving yourself a liar, aren't you? That's a rather worthless defintion of a lie, then isn't it? I mean, if it's true, EVERYONE is a liar. Sorry, I'll stick with real world definitions for the time being, and real-world arguments to go with them, if you please.

Au contraire, but continue...

As though that wasn't taken into consideration when making that decision. The President logically and defensibly believed that there would be worse "mass life and death consequences" if we invaded Iraq than if we didn't. Others logically and defensibly believed the opposite (though none of them apparently post here). Deal with it.

Actually, he doesn't have the luxury NOT to. No President does. They must do what they BELIEVE to be best for their constituents, and act decisively and hope they make the right decisions. We're not living in some fantasy land where we have unlimited time and focus groups to make decisions for us, which, in the end, would STILL be based on belief anyway. You're trying to split a hair that won't end up in your favor any way you cut it.

That is not considered rational thinking. The order of magnitude in the stupidity of that thinking is greater in this day and age than in any other, too, given the fact that "being provoked" today can mean staring at the ruins of a city that used to house millions of people and cursing yourself for not acting on "probability" rather than the ever-unattainable "certainty."

Your complete lack of compelling factual evidence doesn't stop you, "Cookie," from condeming actions that you don't like. Why should it stop them from making actions that they deem prudent?

So the Predident's administration at the end of WWII should have resigned when they found out that nuking Japan probably wouldn't have been as necessary as they thought it was at the time? Hell no. They did what they felt they had to do with the information they had at the time. You show absolutely no honor in condemning people for doing things that you disagree with.

Unless your point is that YOU are a liar, you should look into doing some rewriting that post. Make that a LOT of rewriting, actually, because you're really painting yourself into a corner.

Ed, it may be the real world, the U.S may realise they are the most powerful nation. Might may make right because those that are strongest say it is so but that, in the end, does not make it right.

No Government has the right to go into another country and do what they please no matter their size if anyone in another country is going to loose out. Who benefitted from the 'war' in Iraq? Not the citizens of Iraq. American's reputation has gone down the toilet and they lost troops.

Clearly the U.S would never invade a western world country, thats just stupid. Attacking Iraq or a similar country means the western countries won't blink twice. Attack a western country and every other western country will turn around and say 'Oi! You! No!'. I realise that England would no invade the U.S, I'm just saying do they have the right to seeing as the U.S believes they can march about and do what they please.

What I'm saying is, if someone invaded the U.S and said 'We're looking for WMD's' the U.S would have no right to fight back. It would be hypocritical.

In regards to Iraq giving the WMD's to terrorists, if that was truly their belief then I suppose that is fair enough. I don't believe though that this was the case.

HOWEVER why do the U.S need WMD's in the first place? If they are not going to use them why have them?

Grendel, you seem incapable of understanding what I mean when I say that "asserting belief as fact is a lie." I do not mean one simply says "I'm sure it's so!"

It means you declare you have proof when you don't. It means you state, as Colin Powell did before the UN, that your assertions are NOT merely that, but are KNOWN and PROVEN FACT. (In other words, you're taking the trouble to underline that you're not merely declaring what you believe, but that you're stating what has been proven.) It means you declare not merely that you have reason to believe Hussein may still have WMD in his possession, to the best of your ability to know, given the difficulties of obtaining physical evidence, (as opposed to mere intelligence which is ambiguous and contradictory and may be largely speculative), but you actually list specific types of chemical and bio weapons, and you list specific volumes of each that you know he has in his possession. It means you have your chief crumb bum (Rummy) tell the world that we "know" where the weapons are, "up around Tikrit." It means that you tell the world we've "found the WMD" when you merely have found an empty truck.

Bush did all these things, and none of it was so, and they had no evidence to tell them it was so. They may have convinced themselves it was true, but, just as a believer in God is convinced of God's existence, he has no actual proof. If he asserts his belief, fine and good; if he claims he has actual physical proof, he's lying. More pertinent, perhaps: in a criminal trial, it's assumed the state, in the form of the prosecutor, believes the defendant to be guilty. However, the point of the trial is to prove it; the state cannot act simply on its belief and the people cannot merely accept the state's belief as evidence in itself of the defendant's guilt. Additionally, despite the prosecution's statements to the jury that the state will prove the defendant's guilt, the jury understands this is an argument awaiting elaboration. If, however, the judge presiding over the case were to declare, in the courtroom, before the jury, that the defendant was guilty--before the trial was concluded or even begun, or even just before the jury retired to deliberate the evidence--the case would be declared a mistrial. The judge's statement would possibly prejudice the jury, place in their minds the belief that guilt was already established, (otherwise, why would the judge make the claim?), and destroy the legitimacy of the state's position.

As for Hussein's "threat": he was never a danger to us, he never made a threat against us, and there's no evidence he ever sent any terrorists after us. He certainly had no connection to al Qaeda, which even Bush has acknowledged, belatedly.

Despite your effort, you haven't in the least offered a valid refutation of my argument or a credible defense of Bush's integrity.

And, I shouldn't even have to say this, but given your apparent lack of discernment of nuance, I will: it is self-evidently my opinion I state here, my BELIEFS. I have in no way claimed anything more. (If, however, I were to suggest I had seen intelligence which PROVED Bush knowingly lied...THAT would be a lie.)

Please identify just one direct terrorist attack on the US by the government of Iraq or even an Iraqi citizen (anything that's happened SINCE the US invasion and occupation of that nation doesn't count, obviously).

Furthermore, simply making a verbal threat isn't enough, if it can be demonstrated you haven't the wherewithal to carry through. Empty threats are empty threats and the US government is smart enough to recognize and ignore them. I can threaten you with death by laser beam, but if it's proven I haven't got a laser, don't know how to build one, and haven't got the money to acquire one (plus that I don't even know where you are), then the threat is meaningless.

Any threat Iraq made against the US during the Saddam regime was an empty one...as Saddam knew and the US knew Iraq was incapable of making good on the threat.

R. Cook, I agree with you 100%. Waging war based on a massive state-sponsored lie is morally and legally wrong. For every soldier that went to war because Iraq was an immediate threat to the US because it had weapons of mass delusion, must be comforted to know that their friends and comrads have been injured and killed for a lie. Imagine their delight to have crossed that age-old moral law "Thou shall not kill" for a lie. Bush will be impeached for his lies after 2006, when more sane representatives are elected.

As for Hussein's "threat": he was never a danger to us, he never made a threat against us, and there's no evidence he ever sent any terrorists after us. He certainly had no connection to al Qaeda, which even Bush has acknowledged, belatedly.

State Dept 2000 report

notes that since then abroad activity was limited to dissident suppression (assassination) and funding

The only lie has been saying that we were lied to. Facts were the facts as we knew them.

Please show me where Blix or the UN said that there were no WMDs before the invasion.

An attempt on Bush's life in 1993 is not a threat to the United States, but an attempt to gain personal revenge against George Bush. (If you'll remember, Bush was no longer President at that time.)Hussein no doubt felt personally betrayed by Bush for having waged war against him after our ambassador essentially told him we'd take a "none of our business" attitude toward his plans to attack Kuwait. In any case, in retaliation for the attempt against Bush, CLINTON launched missle strikes against Iraq. Tit for Tat.
As far as WHO has been a threat to WHOM, remember--in both wars we've waged against Iraq, WE'VE been the first to strike, neither time as a result of any actual danger to us.

Hussein has not, to my knowledge, ever issued any threats to attack our country, and Bush and Company have not provided any specifics of such supposed threats as part of their justification for "pre-emptive" war. This is why they made their carefully-phrased insinuations that Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda and to 9/11...it was, aside from the WMD, their only means to convince us there was a reason to go against HUSSEIN when we had been attacked by BIN LADEN.

Face it, as they've shown with everything else, they consistently and willfully promulgate mis- and disinformation in an attempt to cover their failures, or to eliminate opponents who might thwart them, or to compel our compliance with their predetermined plots.

Read through this:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_04/iraqnewsupdate_apr03.asp

Wow. Is that the best you can do justify that Iraq was a threat 10 years later and needed to be invaded?

telling quote

The inspectors, however, said many unresolved questions remain. Blix noted March 19 that, since his February 14 Security Council briefing, Iraq had turned over several sets of documents related to prohibited weapons programs, but they yielded little new information.

yes or no Mr Blix we are not asking you if more inspections are needed.

Since I don't trust the UN or the "World Community" that would sort of be a yes, that is even before the the whole Oil for food buyout ever came to light and revealed that the body has become nothing more that horrid version of the TV show Survivor.

"They saw me as a threat, and I wanted to change the face of the game and vote out the people that were the strongest so that we could finish out until the end. Relationships grow and there are attachments. I got nixed." - Deena
"Deena stabbed us all in the back, and I am so incredibly shocked, and I can't ever forgive her for that." - Jenna