Bush Takes Responsibility for Iraq Claim !

[Michael]

siwy - There is no need for "imminent" danger to invoke self defense.

There is no requirement to prove self defense at all, it is just the easiest case to present. Unless I'm reading it wrong (and I admit to not having read the entire War Measures Act and the cases that go along with it), there is not a list of reasons that the use of force must fall under. There is a need for Congress to approve and the President to make an order. The President actually has stronger powers than that and can use force without approval of Congress, but, in the case of Iraq, approval was given.

Moonbeam - Is there a specific point which I'm lying about? I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you'd point it out. Or we can trade 'He touched me first!' posts all day until our mommies come and get us. Mine lives across the country, so I have to put an early call into her if you think it is needed.

Michael

 

[Moonbeam]

It strikes me as amazing that a man can reach majority with an infantile need to call others liars. It seems to me too, that anybody with even an ounce of psychological sophistication would recognize this need as the traumatic consequence of not being trusted as a child. Once in place and not treated one walks around for the rest of ones life with ones left finger set to point, ever on the lookout for somebody to condemn. LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! He who does not trust himself sees liars everywhere. It is the Liar who suspects you of lying.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Michael
phillyTIM - It'll be closed when you admit you're a liar again or prove your assertions. Are you a moderator to tell me what I can or can't post or what activity I can or can't engage in here? Do you have problems with the requirement to actually be able to support your position and statements? Shoo.

Michael

Michael, are you going to admit you are a liar. Would you please link me to such requirements, or if you can't, fess up to your lie?

I bolded to make it easier.

 

[Michael]

moonbeam - You have no problems calling Bush a liar and or a thief, right? So you're basically making a comment that includes you and me and are marveling at the human condition and not making a specific criticism of me?

It would have been easier before the "rules" vanished. The forum header says it is for more serious discussions of politics and current events. I would hold that being able to prove statements you claim are factual would be a requirement, but I can't point out anything sepcific on the site anymore. It is a requirement for me, however. Give me a little time to dig up something on proper debating/discussion and I'm sure I could find something. If that's not acceptable, I would have to agree that you're technically correct.

Michael

 

[phillyTIM]

Michael practices the Bush Regime's mainstay: deception by confusion. Creating a haze of dumbness that makes people just give up and not listen to them anymore or care about what they say!

 

[Michael]

phillyTIM - I guess you're lying about not caring about what I say. Lying seems to come naturally to you, so I'm not surprised.

Michael

 

[Corn]

It strikes me as amazing that a man can reach majority with an infantile need to call others liars. It seems to me too, that anybody with even an ounce of psychological sophistication would recognize this need as the traumatic consequence of not being trusted as a child.

Of course you know this because you're living it. I would remind you of the folly of projecting your own behaivors and instinct onto others who are not you, unfortunately your self-hate prevents the reason for this from being recognized by whatever ethics you may possess. Needless to say, if you really do wish to learn, I'll be there for you Moonie, you need only ask.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Michael
moonbeam - You have no problems calling Bush a liar and or a thief, right? So you're basically making a comment that includes you and me and are marveling at the human condition and not making a specific criticism of me?

Michael

I was just exploring the concept of lying. You were calling people liars and I wanted to know if you were of a similar ilk because you made a statement which you can't substanciate. You said:

"It'll be closed when you admit you're a liar again or prove your assertions. (You define liar here as one who can't prove his assertions. We will use your definition) Are you a moderator to tell me what I can or can't post or what activity I can or can't engage in here? Do you have problems with the requirement (Here you charge him with having problems eith requirements. I simply challenge you to produce those requirements to prove what you said just as you asked him to do or shoo. Give me the link to those requirements. Show them to me) to actually be able to support your position and statements(You haven't and seem to be avoiding doing just that yourself)? Shoo.

Show me the requirements please or fall on your own sword.

 

[Michael]

Corn - I think it has to do with siwy and I discussing issues. We obviously disagree, but moontroll feels the need to jump in whenever a reasonable discussion of the issues goes on because he can't stand to see that.

Moonbeam - I already defined the requirements being the basic expectations of a serious discussion - at least my take one it. I also already conceded that, since the forum rules vanished, that official requirment vanished.

My sword is rather blunt and it'll be fairly messy and painful. Can I just jump out into the traffic on 880. That's just across the street from me and much easier to do. It doesn't require me driving home.

Michael

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Michael
phillyTIM - I guess you're lying about not caring about what I say. Lying seems to come naturally to you, so I'm not surprised.

Michael

Well since everything you say is the TRUTH, that must be the truth then too, Michael. Heheh

 

[Michael]

phillyTIM - For someone who claims to not care what I think or post, you seem to be compelled to comment on my posts very often.

Michael

 

[Corn]

Corn - I think it has to do with siwy and I discussing issues. We obviously disagree, but moontroll feels the need to jump in whenever a reasonable discussion of the issues goes on because he can't stand to see that.

I especially enjoyed Moonies last post in which he dishonestly attributes to you the definition of what constitutes a lie: "You define liar here as one who can't prove his assertions. We will use your definition."

Moonbeams lack of sophisticated reasoning hides from his understanding the fact that the lie had already been proven. Bush did not utter the "45 minute" phrase as PhillyTIM had claimed, it had already been attributed to Blair, and taken out of context for good measure.

 

[phillyTIM]

I'm bored here at work, plus I like playing with toys and watching them spin. 🙂

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

It strikes me as amazing that a man can reach majority with an infantile need to call others liars. It seems to me too, that anybody with even an ounce of psychological sophistication would recognize this need as the traumatic consequence of not being trusted as a child.

Of course you know this because you're living it. I would remind you of the folly of projecting your own behaivors and instinct onto others who are not you, unfortunately your self-hate prevents the reason for this from being recognized by whatever ethics you may possess. Needless to say, if you really do wish to learn, I'll be there for you Moonie, you need only ask.

Hehe, Thank you Corn, you are most generous. Of course I know this because I am living it. Of course I'm projecting too. Unfortunately, but unfortunately for you, my self hate is not self concealed. You see it's not keeping this from being recognized. The ethics by which I accomplished this feat, of course was self honesty. Needless to say if you really do wish to learn, you will have to die. You'll have to discover that harvest day is enlightenment. Unfortunately it's your bad feelings that make you need to lie. You can't even acknowledge they are there. But I will help you gladly. My honesty cost me everything. But I believe you want to be honest Corn, and it will carry you far. Honesty in the end turns into love.

 

[Siwy]

siwy - There is no need for "imminent" danger to invoke self defense.

There is a need for imminent danger to invoke self defense by the use of military force, otherwise it wouldn't be self defense but an attack.

There is no requirement to prove self defense at all, it is just the easiest case to present.

What you are saying here is that any country can easily make up an excuse to "self defend"... it would be a free for all.

Unless I'm reading it wrong (and I admit to not having read the entire War Measures Act and the cases that go along with it), there is not a list of reasons that the use of force must fall under. There is a need for Congress to approve and the President to make an order. The President actually has stronger powers than that and can use force without approval of Congress, but, in the case of Iraq, approval was given.

I don't think there is a point in continuing this argument if you think that US is above the International Law and can take it in it's own hands anytime it pleases.

 

[Michael]

siwy - I need a definition of "imminent". One US claim was that Iraq could easily give chemical and biological weapons to terrorists to attack the USA. That wasn't expected to happen in a week, but sometime in the next year or so seemed plausible. So "self defense" could easily be invoked under that logic.

Now that it is a war of self defense, it is legal under international law (by your reasoning).

There was another line of reasoning that went that the Gulf War never ended and the 2003 version was a resumption of previous hostilities.

Michael

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Michael
Corn - I think it has to do with siwy and I discussing issues. We obviously disagree, but moontroll feels the need to jump in whenever a reasonable discussion of the issues goes on because he can't stand to see that.

Moonbeam - I already defined the requirements being the basic expectations of a serious discussion - at least my take one it. I also already conceded that, since the forum rules vanished, that official requirment vanished.

My sword is rather blunt and it'll be fairly messy and painful. Can I just jump out into the traffic on 880. That's just across the street from me and much easier to do. It doesn't require me driving home.

Michael

Well thank you for the clarification, Michael. I now understand that a liar for you is one who does not follow your opinion as to what the basic expectations of a serious discussion are. Thank you for returning us to the world of opinion where people who disagree with you aren't liars, but people who do not have a like mind.
======================

Originally posted by: Corn

Corn - I think it has to do with siwy and I discussing issues. We obviously disagree, but moontroll feels the need to jump in whenever a reasonable discussion of the issues goes on because he can't stand to see that.

I especially enjoyed Moonies last post in which he dishonestly attributes to you the definition of what constitutes a lie: "You define liar here as one who can't prove his assertions. We will use your definition."

Moonbeams lack of sophisticated reasoning hides from his understanding the fact that the lie had already been proven. Bush did not utter the "45 minute" phrase as PhillyTIM had claimed, it had already been attributed to Blair, and taken out of context for good measure.

Hehe, talk about lack of sophistication. And to think we've been over this point in the phony links you posted earlier and others so many times before. To mistakenly post that Bush said something is not a lie. May I remind you that you are always screaming about the implication with WMD. We know that the British said 45 minutes. We told our own similar and different misspeakings. 😀 Sophisticated is he who does not deal with the mire himself in minutia and goes for the bigger point. But I'm only too glad to play.
So then explain this to me:


"I especially enjoyed Moonies last post in which he dishonestly attributes to you the definition of what constitutes a lie: "You define liar here as one who can't prove his assertions. We will use your definition.

Moonbeams lack of sophisticated reasoning hides from his understanding the fact that the lie had already been proven. Bush did not utter the "45 minute" phrase as PhillyTIM had claimed, it had already been attributed to Blair, and taken out of context for good measure."

How could I dishonestly attribute to him the definition that he used. He used it and the attribution was accurate. He self defined his point. It was a good definition. To attack as dishonest my attribution is inaccurate, you want to attack the context in which it was made on the theory that that somehow changes things. You want to pretend that Philly is a known liar based on your interpretation of things. If it were universally agreed that philly was a liar why shout it out. Do you run around screaming the sky is blue. No, you have a motivation, you need to find out what it is.

 

[Michael]

moonbeam - No, phillyTIM is still a liar. His lie had nothing to do with my "requirements".

I'm going out to lunch now, let me know if I have to jump the fence around 880 when I get back.

Michael

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Michael
moonbeam - No, phillyTIM is still a liar. His lie had nothing to do with my "requirements".

I'm going out to lunch now, let me know if I have to jump the fence around 880 when I get back.

Michael

You are still a whiner I see.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Michael
moonbeam - No, phillyTIM is still a liar. His lie had nothing to do with my "requirements".

I'm going out to lunch now, let me know if I have to jump the fence around 880 when I get back.

Michael

Hehe, then next time don't 'require' them.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Michael
siwy - I need a definition of "imminent". One US claim was that Iraq could easily give chemical and biological weapons to terrorists to attack the USA. That wasn't expected to happen in a week, but sometime in the next year or so seemed plausible. So "self defense" could easily be invoked under that logic.

Now that it is a war of self defense, it is legal under international law (by your reasoning).

There was another line of reasoning that went that the Gulf War never ended and the 2003 version was a resumption of previous hostilities.

Michael

US claim you're talking about is false. It was disputed by CIA before the war.

"As it makes its case against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has for now dropped what had been a central argument used by supporters of military action against Baghdad: Iraq's links to al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.
Although administration officials say they are still trying to develop a case linking Saddam Hussein to global terrorism, the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence, according to senior intelligence officials and outside experts with knowledge of discussions within the US Government." CIA fails to find Iraqi link to terror

So that couldn't be the "self defense" you're talking about.

 

[Michael]

siwy - I don't think there is any doubt that Iraq had links to terrorist groups. The proven links are with anti-Israel groups (like the PLO). The worldview changed after 9/11 and I personally think there would have been links. It wasn't Hussein's style to be too close to the fanatical Islamic groups, however, as he was too "secular" himself.

So the lack of documented proof doesn't eliminate the reasonable assumption that this was an avenue of threat the USA would have to face in the future.

It is debateable as too how much was needed to actually attack the country. Part of that line of reasoning goes to how much and how deadly the WMD in Iraq were. In hindsight, it doesn't seem that dangerous right now as large stockpiles of military-ready weapons were not found. However, we have to use the information available at the time of the decision. At this point, I'm at a loss as I did not and do not have access to that information.

Before I discuss the concept of the war being "illegal" under international law any further, do you agree that it was legal under US law?

Michael

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Michael
moonbeam - You have no problems calling Bush a liar and or a thief, right? So you're basically making a comment that includes you and me and are marveling at the human condition and not making a specific criticism of me?

It would have been easier before the "rules" vanished. The forum header says it is for more serious discussions of politics and current events. I would hold that being able to prove statements you claim are factual would be a requirement, but I can't point out anything sepcific on the site anymore. It is a requirement for me, however. Give me a little time to dig up something on proper debating/discussion and I'm sure I could find something. If that's not acceptable, I would have to agree that you're technically correct.

Michael

Rather than calling me techincally correct why don't we just agree that also as a part of a reasonable standard of debate people don't constantly refer to each other as liars or for that matter trolls. Lets apply that to Bush where it has some validity. 😀

 

[Michael]

moonbeam - As long as phillyTIM doesn't lie and you don't troll, I'm agreeable.

Michael

 

[Siwy]

siwy - I don't think there is any doubt that Iraq had links to terrorist groups. The proven links are with anti-Israel groups (like the PLO). The worldview changed after 9/11 and I personally think there would have been links. It wasn't Hussein's style to be too close to the fanatical Islamic groups, however, as he was too "secular" himself.

So the lack of documented proof doesn't eliminate the reasonable assumption that this was an avenue of threat the USA would have to face in the future.

It is debateable as too how much was needed to actually attack the country. Part of that line of reasoning goes to how much and how deadly the WMD in Iraq were. In hindsight, it doesn't seem that dangerous right now as large stockpiles of military-ready weapons were not found. However, we have to use the information available at the time of the decision. At this point, I'm at a loss as I did not and do not have access to that information.

Poul Wolfowitz said so himself that WMD were not really the reason for attacking Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Recently he said that the data on WMD was "murky". Does that sound to you as something that needs immediate action? By action I mean killing thousands of innocent people as well as American and Iraqi soldiers.

It seems that you admit that there was lack of documented proof and that Saddam's style wasn't to be too close to the fanatical Islamic groups. And that is exactly what I'm talking about, the case for preemptive attack was weak and it gets weaker every day. No doubt that the world is a better place with Saddam gone, I don't think anyone would disagree but attacking another nation cannot be decided on the basis of "murky" data.

Before I discuss the concept of the war being "illegal" under international law any further, do you agree that it was legal under US law?

My stance is that it has nothing to do the with US law, since attacking a sovereign country falls under international law. I think that is where our opinions differ.