People who claim that Bush lied about WMD are lying themselves?

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Dari
It's funny how everyone believed he had WMDs before we invaded. It's also funny how prominent Democrats during and after the Clinton presidency claimed that they believed Iraq had WMDs. But the funniest part is how Iraq booted the inspectors in 1998 if they didn't have WMDs and finally give inspectors less than full access when their backs were against the wall.

I guess the extreme liberals will believe what they want even though history says otherwise. I will leave them to their devices. They've been wrong throughout history and this is no different. IMHO, it's absolutely pointless pointing out the facts when they will reply "But he lied." Their minds are closed.

Well of course Iraq had WMD's and of course Iraq was a threat to the world but theres this guy named Bin Laden who was more important then and now. Of course if the claims Bush made were true, it'd be a whole different story.

 

[XZeroII]

No, you people are all just putting words in my mouth. You're all assuming that I'm saying more than I am. I guess I should have known better than to try to have a decent conversation with you people when all you do is keep sidestepping the issue.

*sigh*
forget it all. You people are using your collective closed mindedness to just defeat what I am saying w/o even giving it a shread of thought. You just attack my words, not my meaning. Your blind hatred of Bush has been transfered to me. Now you blindly hate and attack me as well.

 

[Spencer278]

 

[Spencer278]

lol clicked the wrong replay button. Why does it let a blank replay to be created?

 

[Ulukai]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Taking a good possibility and presenting it as hard fact is not deceitful?

I agree. But we aren't talking about deciet! We are talking about lying.

From dictionary.com:

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.


Taking a good possibility and presenting it as hard fact = intentionally deceiving = lying

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Ulukai

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Taking a good possibility and presenting it as hard fact is not deceitful?

I agree. But we aren't talking about deciet! We are talking about lying.

From dictionary.com:

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


Taking a good possibility and presenting it as hard fact = intentionally deceiving = lying

yes, read it carefully. Something MEANT to decieve. Opposed to something NOT MEANT to decieve. They are two different things.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: Dari
It's funny how everyone believed he had WMDs before we invaded. It's also funny how prominent Democrats during and after the Clinton presidency claimed that they believed Iraq had WMDs. But the funniest part is how Iraq booted the inspectors in 1998 if they didn't have WMDs and finally give inspectors less than full access when their backs were against the wall.

I guess the extreme liberals will believe what they want even though history says otherwise. I will leave them to their devices. They've been wrong throughout history and this is no different. IMHO, it's absolutely pointless pointing out the facts when they will reply "But he lied." Their minds are closed.

Well of course Iraq had WMD's and of course Iraq was a threat to the world but theres this guy named Bin Laden who was more important then and now. Of course if the claims Bush made were true, it'd be a whole different story.

If you let common sense enter your cranium, you'd realize that bin Laden's 9/11 attacks was the primary reason we went after Hussein. After watching Hussein's intransigence (support of terror, his WMDs, 16 Article VII resolutions, and two previous wars against neighbors) for 10 years, the Bush Administration felt that they couldn't let another marriage between outlaw regimes (Afghanistan's Taliban) and terror networks (Al Qaeda) take place. His litany of crimes and illegal activities prompted the Administration to act. As for bin Laden, he's not leading any parades. The only reason why he's able to trigger attacks is because his nework has outsourced most of its terror activities to local organizations/cells. These organizations/cells get the call to act via crypted messages within globally broadcasted sermons.

Another thing tofor you to understand is that the war on terror is against more than one man or network. It's also against WMDs and the causes of terror. This ranges from convincing rogue and unstable nations from activating a weapons program to educating muslims. It also involves maritime activities to prevent the spread of WMDs. Why don't you read Colin Powell's excellent
paper on how far-reaching this war is.

Don't think the war has been successful? Well, since 9/11, we've
captured or killed 3,300 Al Qaeda members;
changed the leadership of three outlawed regimes (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Liberia, which was at the center of Al Qaeda's West African diamond/financial operations);
convinced Iran to sign up to more stringent checks of her nuclear activities;
setup bases in Central Asia;
rallied our allies and friends in pressuring North Korea to negotiate the end of her nuclear program;
convinced Libya to voluntarily dismantle her weapons program;
dismantled or destroyed charities that funnel money for terrorists;
forced Syria to re-think its support of terror;
convinced Saudi Arabia to look more closely at its own home-grown terror problem)
passed many international anti-terror laws.
re-positioned NATO to better handle the threat of terrorism.

and more...

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Dari
It's funny how everyone believed he had WMDs before we invaded.

Yup. Of course our believing he had WMDs had absolutely nothing to do with what bush said...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: Dari
It's funny how everyone believed he had WMDs before we invaded. It's also funny how prominent Democrats during and after the Clinton presidency claimed that they believed Iraq had WMDs. But the funniest part is how Iraq booted the inspectors in 1998 if they didn't have WMDs and finally give inspectors less than full access when their backs were against the wall.

I guess the extreme liberals will believe what they want even though history says otherwise. I will leave them to their devices. They've been wrong throughout history and this is no different. IMHO, it's absolutely pointless pointing out the facts when they will reply "But he lied." Their minds are closed.

Well of course Iraq had WMD's and of course Iraq was a threat to the world but theres this guy named Bin Laden who was more important then and now. Of course if the claims Bush made were true, it'd be a whole different story.

If you let common sense enter your cranium, you'd realize that bin Laden's 9/11 attacks was the primary reason we went after Hussein. After watching Hussein's intransigence (support of terror, his WMDs, and two previous wars against neighbors) for 10 years, the Bush Administration felt that they couldn't let another marriage between outlaw regimes (Afghanistan's Taliban) and terror networks (Al Qaeda). His litany of crimes and illegal activities prompted the Administration to act. As for bin Laden, he's not leading any parades. The only reason why he's able to trigger attacks is because his nework has outsourced most of its terror activities to local organizations/cells. These organizations/cells get the call to act via crypted messages within globally broadcasted sermons.

Another thing tofor you to understand is that the war on terror is against more than one man or network. It's also against WMDs and the causes of terror. This ranges from convincing rogue and unstable nations from activating a weapons program to educating muslims. It also involves maritime activities to prevent the spread of WMDs. Why don't you read Colin Powell's excellent
paper on how far-reaching this war is.

Don't think the war has been successful? Well, since 9/11, we've
captured or killed 3,300 Al Qaeda members;
changed the leadership of three outlawed regimes (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Liberia, which was at the center of Al Qaeda's West African financial scheme);
convinced Iran to sign up to more stringent checks of her nuclear activities;
setup bases in Central Asia;
rallied our allies and friends in pressuring North Korea to negotiate the end of her nuclear program;
convinced Libya to voluntarily dismantle her weapons program;
dismantled or destroyed charities that funnel money for terrorists;
forced Syria to re-think its support of terror;
convinced Saudi Arabia to look more closely at its own home-grown terror problem)
passed many international anti-terror laws.
re-positioned NATO to better handle the threat of terrorism.

and more...

The cliff notes version
The ends justify the means.

You and Bush have yet to demonstrate that Saddam was IN FACT a threat to the US or neighbors. What you do is define acceptable behavior then condone attacking whoever does not meet those criteria. If I attacked those I know are "bad" people, I would be in jail. Unfortunately there is no jail for the powerful who commit the same acts.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
yes, read it carefully. Something MEANT to decieve. Opposed to something NOT MEANT to decieve. They are two different things.

Then you and I aren't connecting somehow because that is exactly my point. Bush meant to deceive us about WMDs. He misreprented what they really knew and to how many decimal points. He intended to create a false impression of the extent and danger of Iraq's WMDs. As I read the defintion, that means he lied.

What am I missing?

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: DariIf you let common sense enter your cranium, you'd realize that bin Laden's 9/11 attacks was the primary reason we went after Hussein. After watching Hussein's intransigence (support of terror, his WMDs, 16 Article VII resolutions, and two previous wars against neighbors) for 10 years, the Bush Administration felt that they couldn't let another marriage between outlaw regimes (Afghanistan's Taliban) and terror networks (Al Qaeda) take place. His litany of crimes and illegal activities prompted the Administration to act. As for bin Laden, he's not leading any parades. The only reason why he's able to trigger attacks is because his nework has outsourced most of its terror activities to local organizations/cells. These organizations/cells get the call to act via crypted messages within globally broadcasted sermons.

Sure 9/11 was why we took Iraq. But thats like I was out on I90 today, got rearended, got out of my car and shot the driver - and saying that getting rearended was why I shot the driver... Just because there's a plausible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions made.

And what good is killing or capturing 4k Al Qaeda members when we've spawned a culture of western-haters in Arab nations which can fill Al Qaeda's ranks for generations to come?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII
yes, read it carefully. Something MEANT to decieve. Opposed to something NOT MEANT to decieve. They are two different things.

Then you and I aren't connecting somehow because that is exactly my point. Bush meant to deceive us about WMDs. He misreprented what they really knew and to how many decimal points. He intended to create a false impression of the extent and danger of Iraq's WMDs. As I read the defintion, that means he lied.

What am I missing?

When you prove that he didn't honestly believe every word that he spoke then you will have proven that he lied. Until then what you are missing is the intent.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: DariIf you let common sense enter your cranium, you'd realize that bin Laden's 9/11 attacks was the primary reason we went after Hussein. After watching Hussein's intransigence (support of terror, his WMDs, 16 Article VII resolutions, and two previous wars against neighbors) for 10 years, the Bush Administration felt that they couldn't let another marriage between outlaw regimes (Afghanistan's Taliban) and terror networks (Al Qaeda) take place. His litany of crimes and illegal activities prompted the Administration to act. As for bin Laden, he's not leading any parades. The only reason why he's able to trigger attacks is because his nework has outsourced most of its terror activities to local organizations/cells. These organizations/cells get the call to act via crypted messages within globally broadcasted sermons.

Sure 9/11 was why we took Iraq. But thats like I was out on I90 today, got rearended, got out of my car and shot the driver - and saying that getting rearended was why I shot the driver... Just because there's a plausible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions made.

And what good is killing or capturing 4k Al Qaeda members when we've spawned a culture of western-haters in Arab nations which can fill Al Qaeda's ranks for generations to come?

That statement doesn't make any sense. If it's plausible, then it's acceptable/credible. You need to look up the word plausible and if you don't understand what it means don't use it in sentences.

You must've forgotten the part where I mentioned that we would educate them about us. Furthermore, you must've also forgotten about what Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address. He created a volunteering program that would include Americans going abroad (including Middle Eastern countries) and helping out there. There are countless other measures, but of course you may just disregard them out of political bias.

BTW, where is your proof that we've "spawned a culture of western-haters?" Did you get it from the same place that said the "Arab street would rise and overthrow pro-American gov'ts after 9/11, and again after we invaded Iraq?

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII
yes, read it carefully. Something MEANT to decieve. Opposed to something NOT MEANT to decieve. They are two different things.

Then you and I aren't connecting somehow because that is exactly my point. Bush meant to deceive us about WMDs. He misreprented what they really knew and to how many decimal points. He intended to create a false impression of the extent and danger of Iraq's WMDs. As I read the defintion, that means he lied.

What am I missing?

When you prove that he didn't honestly believe every word that he spoke then you will have proven that he lied. Until then what you are missing is the intent.

As pres, bush is no less accountable for his words if he didn't lie. And when you prove that Iraq had WMDs you would have justified the war.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII
yes, read it carefully. Something MEANT to decieve. Opposed to something NOT MEANT to decieve. They are two different things.

Then you and I aren't connecting somehow because that is exactly my point. Bush meant to deceive us about WMDs. He misreprented what they really knew and to how many decimal points. He intended to create a false impression of the extent and danger of Iraq's WMDs. As I read the defintion, that means he lied.

What am I missing?

When you prove that he didn't honestly believe every word that he spoke then you will have proven that he lied. Until then what you are missing is the intent.

What you are failing to relate here is that the administration selectively influenced the intel output. I think you know that is true. That is a hallmark of this administration not seen since Johnson.

With Johnson, he believed in the domino theory. He believed that we needed to escalate in VN. He believed all this. He presented evidence to this effect. He believed it all. He believed when he changed facts to fit that he was doing the right thing. This was not a simple mistake in judgement. Evidence was weighed with bias. Statememts were made which were untrue in order to preserve a "higher" truth.

It is possible to lie to oneself as well as another.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: DariIf you let common sense enter your cranium, you'd realize that bin Laden's 9/11 attacks was the primary reason we went after Hussein. After watching Hussein's intransigence (support of terror, his WMDs, 16 Article VII resolutions, and two previous wars against neighbors) for 10 years, the Bush Administration felt that they couldn't let another marriage between outlaw regimes (Afghanistan's Taliban) and terror networks (Al Qaeda) take place. His litany of crimes and illegal activities prompted the Administration to act. As for bin Laden, he's not leading any parades. The only reason why he's able to trigger attacks is because his nework has outsourced most of its terror activities to local organizations/cells. These organizations/cells get the call to act via crypted messages within globally broadcasted sermons.

Sure 9/11 was why we took Iraq. But thats like I was out on I90 today, got rearended, got out of my car and shot the driver - and saying that getting rearended was why I shot the driver... Just because there's a plausible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions made.

And what good is killing or capturing 4k Al Qaeda members when we've spawned a culture of western-haters in Arab nations which can fill Al Qaeda's ranks for generations to come?

That statement doesn't make any sense. If it's plausible, then it's acceptable/credible. You need to look up the word plausible and if you don't understand what it means don't use it in sentences.

You must've forgotten the part where I mentioned that we would educate them about us. Furthermore, you must've also forgotten about what Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address. He created a volunteering program that would include Americans going abroad (including Middle Eastern countries) and helping out there. There are countless other measures, but of course you may just disregard them out of political bias.

BTW, where is your proof that we've "spawned a culture of western-haters?" Did you get it from the same place that said the "Arab street would rise and overthrow pro-American gov'ts after 9/11, and again after we invaded Iraq?

Last I looked, plausable means reasonably possible. I can make a plausable argument that you need to be "educated". I do not think you would like if it were used in a context fitting to my AT nic. That I could makes such education acceptable? Interesting.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: DariIf you let common sense enter your cranium, you'd realize that bin Laden's 9/11 attacks was the primary reason we went after Hussein. After watching Hussein's intransigence (support of terror, his WMDs, 16 Article VII resolutions, and two previous wars against neighbors) for 10 years, the Bush Administration felt that they couldn't let another marriage between outlaw regimes (Afghanistan's Taliban) and terror networks (Al Qaeda) take place. His litany of crimes and illegal activities prompted the Administration to act. As for bin Laden, he's not leading any parades. The only reason why he's able to trigger attacks is because his nework has outsourced most of its terror activities to local organizations/cells. These organizations/cells get the call to act via crypted messages within globally broadcasted sermons.

Sure 9/11 was why we took Iraq. But thats like I was out on I90 today, got rearended, got out of my car and shot the driver - and saying that getting rearended was why I shot the driver... Just because there's a plausible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions made.

And what good is killing or capturing 4k Al Qaeda members when we've spawned a culture of western-haters in Arab nations which can fill Al Qaeda's ranks for generations to come?

That statement doesn't make any sense. If it's plausible, then it's acceptable/credible. You need to look up the word plausible and if you don't understand what it means don't use it in sentences.

You must've forgotten the part where I mentioned that we would educate them about us. Furthermore, you must've also forgotten about what Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address. He created a volunteering program that would include Americans going abroad (including Middle Eastern countries) and helping out there. There are countless other measures, but of course you may just disregard them out of political bias.

BTW, where is your proof that we've "spawned a culture of western-haters?" Did you get it from the same place that said the "Arab street would rise and overthrow pro-American gov'ts after 9/11, and again after we invaded Iraq?

Last I looked, plausable means reasonably possible. I can make a plausable argument that you need to be "educated". I do not think you would like if it were used in a context fitting to my AT nic. That I could makes such education acceptable? Interesting.

Well then, let me make this clear for you. The war in Iraq was justifiable years before 9/11. September 11 added an urgency of dealing with the Iraqi problem. Clinton could've handled it under UN rules, but after Somalia, he was afraid.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Sure 9/11 was why we took Iraq. But thats like I was out on I90 today, got rearended, got out of my car and shot the driver - and saying that getting rearended was why I shot the driver... Just because there's a plausible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions made.

And what good is killing or capturing 4k Al Qaeda members when we've spawned a culture of western-haters in Arab nations which can fill Al Qaeda's ranks for generations to come?

That statement doesn't make any sense. If it's plausible, then it's acceptable/credible. You need to look up the word plausible and if you don't understand what it means don't use it in sentences.

And you need to learn to read carefully. Just because you can establish a credible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions. Let me spell it out for you, since clearly you need help. Even if I can establish in a court of law that the driver rearended me, it does not justify my shooting him. Just as even if we can prove OBL caused 9/11 (which we can) doesn't justify our going into Iraq.

You must've forgotten the part where I mentioned that we would educate them about us. Furthermore, you must've also forgotten about what Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address. He created a volunteering program that would include Americans going abroad (including Middle Eastern countries) and helping out there. There are countless other measures, but of course you may just disregard them out of political bias.

I'm vaguely aware that bush has some half-assed plans to soften our image around the world. Show me some links.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: DariIf you let common sense enter your cranium, you'd realize that bin Laden's 9/11 attacks was the primary reason we went after Hussein. After watching Hussein's intransigence (support of terror, his WMDs, 16 Article VII resolutions, and two previous wars against neighbors) for 10 years, the Bush Administration felt that they couldn't let another marriage between outlaw regimes (Afghanistan's Taliban) and terror networks (Al Qaeda) take place. His litany of crimes and illegal activities prompted the Administration to act. As for bin Laden, he's not leading any parades. The only reason why he's able to trigger attacks is because his nework has outsourced most of its terror activities to local organizations/cells. These organizations/cells get the call to act via crypted messages within globally broadcasted sermons.

Sure 9/11 was why we took Iraq. But thats like I was out on I90 today, got rearended, got out of my car and shot the driver - and saying that getting rearended was why I shot the driver... Just because there's a plausible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions made.

And what good is killing or capturing 4k Al Qaeda members when we've spawned a culture of western-haters in Arab nations which can fill Al Qaeda's ranks for generations to come?

That statement doesn't make any sense. If it's plausible, then it's acceptable/credible. You need to look up the word plausible and if you don't understand what it means don't use it in sentences.

You must've forgotten the part where I mentioned that we would educate them about us. Furthermore, you must've also forgotten about what Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address. He created a volunteering program that would include Americans going abroad (including Middle Eastern countries) and helping out there. There are countless other measures, but of course you may just disregard them out of political bias.

BTW, where is your proof that we've "spawned a culture of western-haters?" Did you get it from the same place that said the "Arab street would rise and overthrow pro-American gov'ts after 9/11, and again after we invaded Iraq?

Last I looked, plausable means reasonably possible. I can make a plausable argument that you need to be "educated". I do not think you would like if it were used in a context fitting to my AT nic. That I could makes such education acceptable? Interesting.

Well then, let me make this clear for you. The war in Iraq was justifiable years before 9/11. September 11 added an urgency of dealing with the Iraqi problem. Clinton could've handled it under UN rules, but after Somalia, he was afraid.

This is the meat of the matter. Your threshold for war is significantly different from mine. War to me is justified when there is immediate need and no other option. That someone commits an infraction that technically permits a conflict does not change that. This may be a semantic difference to you, but there is a difference between a thing being justified, and being justifiable.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What you are failing to relate here is that the administration selectively influenced the intel output. I think you know that is true. That is a hallmark of this administration not seen since Johnson.

With Johnson, he believed in the domino theory. He believed that we needed to escalate in VN. He believed all this. He presented evidence to this effect. He believed it all. He believed when he changed facts to fit that he was doing the right thing. This was not a simple mistake in judgement. Evidence was weighed with bias. Statememts were made which were untrue in order to preserve a "higher" truth.

It is possible to lie to oneself as well as another.

Nice, very nice. Kinda like the "voluntary environmental regulations, voluntary workplace safety rules, and voluntary financial market oversight works" argument.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Sure 9/11 was why we took Iraq. But thats like I was out on I90 today, got rearended, got out of my car and shot the driver - and saying that getting rearended was why I shot the driver... Just because there's a plausible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions made.

And what good is killing or capturing 4k Al Qaeda members when we've spawned a culture of western-haters in Arab nations which can fill Al Qaeda's ranks for generations to come?

That statement doesn't make any sense. If it's plausible, then it's acceptable/credible. You need to look up the word plausible and if you don't understand what it means don't use it in sentences.

And you need to learn to read carefully. Just because you can establish a credible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions. Let me spell it out for you, since clearly you need help. Even if I can establish in a court of law that the driver rearended me, it does not justify my shooting him. Just as even if we can prove OBL caused 9/11 (which we can) doesn't justify our going into Iraq.

You must've forgotten the part where I mentioned that we would educate them about us. Furthermore, you must've also forgotten about what Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address. He created a volunteering program that would include Americans going abroad (including Middle Eastern countries) and helping out there. There are countless other measures, but of course you may just disregard them out of political bias.

I'm vaguely aware that bush has some half-assed plans to soften our image around the world. Show me some links.

Like I said, you would disregard them out of political bias...and you did.

USA Freedom Corps
link

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: DariIf you let common sense enter your cranium, you'd realize that bin Laden's 9/11 attacks was the primary reason we went after Hussein. After watching Hussein's intransigence (support of terror, his WMDs, 16 Article VII resolutions, and two previous wars against neighbors) for 10 years, the Bush Administration felt that they couldn't let another marriage between outlaw regimes (Afghanistan's Taliban) and terror networks (Al Qaeda) take place. His litany of crimes and illegal activities prompted the Administration to act. As for bin Laden, he's not leading any parades. The only reason why he's able to trigger attacks is because his nework has outsourced most of its terror activities to local organizations/cells. These organizations/cells get the call to act via crypted messages within globally broadcasted sermons.

Sure 9/11 was why we took Iraq. But thats like I was out on I90 today, got rearended, got out of my car and shot the driver - and saying that getting rearended was why I shot the driver... Just because there's a plausible chain of cause and effect doesn't justify the decisions made.

And what good is killing or capturing 4k Al Qaeda members when we've spawned a culture of western-haters in Arab nations which can fill Al Qaeda's ranks for generations to come?

That statement doesn't make any sense. If it's plausible, then it's acceptable/credible. You need to look up the word plausible and if you don't understand what it means don't use it in sentences.

You must've forgotten the part where I mentioned that we would educate them about us. Furthermore, you must've also forgotten about what Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address. He created a volunteering program that would include Americans going abroad (including Middle Eastern countries) and helping out there. There are countless other measures, but of course you may just disregard them out of political bias.

BTW, where is your proof that we've "spawned a culture of western-haters?" Did you get it from the same place that said the "Arab street would rise and overthrow pro-American gov'ts after 9/11, and again after we invaded Iraq?

Last I looked, plausable means reasonably possible. I can make a plausable argument that you need to be "educated". I do not think you would like if it were used in a context fitting to my AT nic. That I could makes such education acceptable? Interesting.

Well then, let me make this clear for you. The war in Iraq was justifiable years before 9/11. September 11 added an urgency of dealing with the Iraqi problem. Clinton could've handled it under UN rules, but after Somalia, he was afraid.

This is the meat of the matter. Your threshold for war is significantly different from mine. War to me is justified when there is immediate need and no other option. That someone commits an infraction that technically permits a conflict does not change that. This may be a semantic difference to you, but there is a difference between a thing being justified, and being justifiable.

Your justification is different from that of the UN's then, and most international lawyers for that matter.

Upon signing the truce, the UN told Iraq to abide by the truce or face the consequences. Iraq decided to flaunt the resolutions. She eventually faced the consequences.

By the way, let's keep our personal thoughts out of legal matter. Whether or not the war was justifiable should not be based on how you feel about war or whether or not it's right another nations for failing in its obligation to abide by international order.

 

[Gaard]

If Commander says "Bush is not a liar" without knowing for certain whether he is or not, does that make Commander a liar?

If Bush claimed to have known the truth about WMD (wich he did), but in fact wasn't 100% sure whether they existed or not, is Bush a liar?

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: DariLike I said, you would disregard them out of political bias...and you did.

USA Freedom Corps
link

Is that all? I see nothing in the middle east...

Well, okay... one...

http://www.idealist.org/volunteerOpportunities/95702:327/91218:207&void=1449346

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

OK . . . so was Rumsfeld and/or Cheney lying when they made specific weapons claims about Iraq? Or is it good enough to say "US intelligence . . ."