That doesn't mean that thinking Bush is lying is unreasonable it just means you need a better argument for it then simply "Bush said Iraq had WMD, we have found no WMD, therefore Bush was lying.
You're not listening...........I repeat "it does to me and countless other people".
I was "listening". My comment was along the lines of me saying the car is blue, then you saying "its red to me and a number of other people", and then me saying that this doesn't change the fact that its blue.
More specifically when you say "it does to me" you are relying on your opinions of Bush. I'm assuming you are at least somewhat logical, so I don't think that you take the facts "Bush said that Iraq had WMD" and "we have found no WMD" and conclude that Bush was lying. What I think you are actually doing is taking those facts plus other opinions and impressions about Bush and then reaching the conclusion that Bush is lying.
No, I am not. I am saying that Bush wanted this war so badly he could taste it and he did whatever he had to to get it.
If your other opinions and impressions where "Bush is an honest man, who greatly respects the truth", then you probably wouldn't conclude that he is lying. But your other opinions and impressions are more along the lines of "Bush is a liar", or at least "Bush's body languages and general secretiveness makes it seem like he is dishonest and trying to cover something up".
I know this is not true for you but for many of us, there is enough factual evidence that Bush has lied......on several occasions. Some people will do pretty much whatever it takes to get what they want........I think Bush is one of those people.
With those additional opinions and impressions included in the equation it makes sense to reach at least a tentative conclusion that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD. But those additional opinions and impressions are mostly subjective.
Its true that there are some stuff that's subjective but I would not make that statement based solely on subjectivity. There has to be supportive facts for me to make such a call.
Stop right there........a president of this democracy does not have the right to start a pre emptive war without sufficient, verifiable proof. He did not have that proof.
There is no specific relevant requirement for "sufficient verifiable proof" of anything. There is the potential war powers concern but 1 - That would still be present with any amount of hard verifiable proof; 2 - All recent presidents have felt free to deploy US forces aggressively without an actual declaration of war; and 3 - Congress voted to support the invasion of Iraq.
That's true. I still don't think a president of this country should start a war without sufficient evidence to support his actions.
"What sort of benefit would, in your opinion, justify the loss of about 700 Americans and 100 or so billion dollars?"
The defense of the continuous US.
"Nothing short of that??"
Exactly right........esp. if we want to wear the moniker that we are very fond of........a peace loving nation.
Well at least we understand more about where we disagree. IMO even if Iraq might be questioned its silly to say that nothing short of the defense of the continuous US would be worth a vigorous military effort. Leaving aside the fact that Hawaii and Alaska (and Puerto Rico and other US possessions) are not continuous because I assume that you would be willing to have them defended or to attack threats to them, I would note that its a rather extreme viewpoint to say we wouldn't make a military effort of any significant cost to keep Canada or the UK from being overrun if such a scenario came up. More realistically if South Korea was invaded it would be worth the cost we have paid so far in Iraq.
I was speaking generally.......however, if Canada or another ally was attacked I could see us coming to their defense.
Since you will only defend the US I assume that you would not have supported any war since the Civil War except WWII (when Pearl Harbor was attacked) and possibly Afghanistan (because it was a response to the 9/11 attacks). And as for wars before the Civil War you would not have supported taking out the Barbary Pirates and you would have made much more of an effort to avoid the War of 1812 even if it meant that the British would continue impressing American sailors in to their Navy. Am I correct in these assumptions?
No. During the War of 1812, the US was attacked.......the Brits. sailed up the Potomac.
The wars I would not have supported were the Korean and Vietnamese wars. I would not have agreed to the Gulf and Yugoslav wars without an adequate coalition.
Point blank.........I don't want the US to play policeman to the world.
ted |
