Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (188695)	5/17/2004 7:14:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573705

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. Thank you for confirming my opinion. Your belief that "Bush wanted this war so badly he could taste it and he did whatever he had to do to get it", is a good example of those "other opinions and impressions about Bush". It remains that even if its true. My original statement was "The lack of WMD doesn't say anything about wether Bush was lying or mistaken." When you reach the conclusion that Bush was not mistaken but was rather lying you include ideas like "Bush wanted this war so badly he could taste it and he did whatever he had to to get it.". However even if you accept "Bush wanted this war so badly he could taste it and he did whatever he had to to get it." as true that doesn't mean that Bush was lying it would only mean that Bush would lie if that was what it took. I believe your other assumptions would probably include something like "Bush knew that their where no WMD in Iraq", or at least "Bush did not think that there was any reason to think it very like that there where still WMD in Iraq." If you start off with those assumptions then calling Bush a liar makes sense. 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. I agree. But different people can take those same facts and come to opposite conclusions based on them. The subjective component is required either way. That's true. I still don't think a president of this country should start a war without sufficient evidence to support his actions. And "sufficent evidence" in your opinion, means hard verifiable proof? No. During the War of 1812, the US was attacked.......the Brits. sailed up the Potomac. During the war. They didn't sail up the Potomac and attack US soil until after we declared war. home.earthlink.net What about the war against the Barbary Pirates? memory.loc.gov 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. We had coalitions in Korea and Vietnam as well, in fact Korea was a UN operation. (Of course they where also much bigger then any of the Yogoslav wars, and took much longer then the Gulf war) Tim