I could say the same thing about your ceaseless defense of Bush. You don't ever stop do you? You are just like Bush. You can't admit that you are wrong.

I guess I will just have to stop here. I, unlike you, tire of repeating myself over and over making a point.

One last time, no doubt in my mind::: Bush told falsehoods with the intent to deceive; in other words he lied. I am going to leave it at that. Well before the 900+ lies that Bush and Co. told.

I often admit that I am wrong, when someone shows me that I am wrong. All you have done is repeat over an over, maybe 900 times, your baseless position, devoid of reason. Maybe I am defending Bush, but that is secondary to my main point, which is that your position is noting more than unsupported bias. You have never given an example of Bush lying that fits a real dictionary definition.

The example being discussed is Bush's claim of WMD in Iraq; this is not a lie because, even if it was false, no one knew that, including the President when the claim was made.

Based on what we know now, why are we still there? ;)

Because there was more to it than the claim of WMD. Look at the reason (one of many) in this post, which no one has ever disputed with facts.

Because there was more to it than the claim of WMD.

None of which, was an immediate threat... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Because there was more to it than the claim of WMD.

None of which, was an immediate threat... ;)

In the wake of 911, the mere possibility of WMD in Saddam's hands was an "immediate threat". But more importantly, the war is often called illegal, yet it was Saddam's violation of the cease-fire treaty and refusal to allow full and complete weapons inspections that caused the President to ask Congress to pass the War Powers Act. They did. Nothing illegal. And that action by Congress is justified by Saddam's violations of the cease-fire, which is an act of war.

What so many people forget is that the President explained all this to Congress along with his belief about WMD being present. There was not a single, failed reason for military action, it was a combination of serious threats and violations by Saddam and his military.

Don't you agree? If you don't agree, then please give me legal reasons rather than a differing philosophical point of view.

There was not a single, failed reason for military action

Other than bad intel... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

There was not a single, failed reason for military action

Other than bad intel... ;)

Yes, the "intel" was probably bad in all the Western intelligence services. Yet, there remain many other sufficient, valid reasons for the war. Those reasons are ignored by the critics. As you haven't given any reasons that my description of events and circumstances is wrong, then can I take it that you agree with me?

Yet, there remain many other sufficient, valid reasons for the war.

Were those reasons worth the consequences... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Yet, there remain many other sufficient, valid reasons for the war.

Were those reasons worth the consequences... ;)

Absolutely. Saddam was a genocidal murderer. He used chemical weapons against his own people and reigned by terror. His torture was not so mild as water-boarding; his military and police used physical mutilation, rape and extreme pain inducing methods.

His military attacked Kuwait and pillaged that country (unlike us, he really was after the oil) then set the oilfields on fire causing massive ecological damage. After suing for peace and agreeing to restrictive conditions, including weapons inspections, he went back on every major condition for a decade.

He harbored terrorists and allowed terrorists training camps in Iraq (even though he was not involved in 911). He supported Palestinian suicide bombings and continually threatened Israel, including firing SCUDS at Israel, a non-combatant nation, during the first George Bush's Gulf War.

We have lost, in four and a half years, about as many Americans as were killed in the Pearl Harbor attack. Our military has used the most sophisticated weapons to minimize civilian casualties, and we, unlike the terrorist groups, prosecute our soldiers for violations of the rules of war including unjustified civilian deaths.

There is now an elected civilian government that is trying to make Iraq a stable country. They are having some success. This list of reasons is not complete, but explains what we are there for and some of what we have accomplished.

Are those reasons worth the consequences? Absolutely.

Saddam was a genocidal murderer.

Wasn't Saddam one of our closest allies in the Middle East... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Saddam was a genocidal murderer.

Wasn't Saddam one of our closest allies in the Middle East... ;)

I've read all the threads about who lied about what, he said, she said. Instead of wasting time blasting all the bad guys, take some time out to look at the Ron Paul Revolution that's going on in America. These are everyday, all walks of life Americans who really believe this guy will give us back our freedom and start us into the path of a true economic recovery.

---

But the fact that Saddam expelled weapons inspectors, by itself, was reason enough for us to take military action.

Qui-Gon

Bush removed the weapons inspectors on the eve of the invasion.
Up to the point American troops moved in there had been US and UN inspectors on the ground.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9064.doc.htm

The above link shows the UN Security Council concluding there were no WMD on June 29 2007. Complete with a confirmation letter co-signed by Secretary of State Rice.


http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/918.cfm

This link gives some world opinion just before the invasion.

Qui-Gon...there's more going on in the world than FOX News tells you.

His military attacked Kuwait and pillaged that country (unlike us, he really was after the oil) then set the oilfields on fire causing massive ecological damage.

Actually, Saddam invaded Kuwait after years of aguing with them over their lateral underground drilling into Iraqi reserves.

I suppose this never made it into a FOX News broadcast either.

Maybe I am defending Bush, but that is secondary to my main point, which is that your position is noting more than unsupported bias. You have never given an example of Bush lying that fits a real dictionary definition.

Jeez Qui-Gon, you sound like Bill Clinton asking for a definition of the "is"

I wonder how any nation would react when hearing the American president speak of invading them? Especially after the rhetoric leading up to the actual invasion of Iraq.

Would they be justified in attempting a pre-emptive strike of their own?

Would such a pre-emptive strike, in the face of Bush's actions these past years, be considered by the world to be an act of terror or an act of self defense?

Qui-Gon...rather than argue over dictionary definitions, could you give your answer to my original post?

I'm really very interested to know if pre-emptive strikes are morally justifiable when they are against the US.

We've all heard the Republican administration's claims of the morality of an American pre-emptive strike anywhere in the world.

Is there a difference? If so, what international treaty or code of conduct is it based on?

I wonder how any nation would react when hearing the American president speak of invading them? Especially after the rhetoric leading up to the actual invasion of Iraq.

Would they be justified in attempting a pre-emptive strike of their own?

Would such a pre-emptive strike, in the face of Bush's actions these past years, be considered by the world to be an act of terror or an act of self defense?

Qui-Gon...rather than argue over dictionary definitions, could you give your answer to my original post?

I'm really very interested to know if pre-emptive strikes are morally justifiable when they are against the US.

We've all heard the Republican administration's claims of the morality of an American pre-emptive strike anywhere in the world.

Is there a difference? If so, what international treaty or code of conduct is it based on?

The title of this thread is "Lies Lies Lies", yet people posting here have no idea what it means to lie. Don't you think a dictionary definition is a good reference for the word's meaning? I am not arguing over the meaning of the word: people who think all false statements are lies are simply wrong. My posts about this stem from posts by people who think that they can claim a word means something it does not, simply because they say so. Presenting them with a dictionary definition that contradicts their claim shows that the claim is wrong. Thus, their argument, based on a wrong definition, is wrong both in its premise and conclusion.

"Pre-emptive strikes" are what the opponents of the administration call the current war in Iraq, but if you read my discussion of that you will see it wasn't pre-emptive at all. It was a reaction to Saddam's treaty violations, and it was only done after approval by Congress.

Are other pre-emptive strikes warranted? From a position of international negotiation, the option should not be taken off the table--it would depend on circumstances. Unprovoked pre-emptive strikes are another matter. No one in the administration has ever suggested that the US should engage in unprovoked pre-emptive strikes.

So, after listening to the American president and his rhetoric leading up to the invasion of Iraq, is the nation of Iran which is now facing the very same doubts and allegations from the US justified in any way if it feels the need to pre-emptively strike the US?

Would the world's opinion be that such a pre-emptive strike is an act of terror or an act of self defence?

You can't claim such an attack is unprovoked because the same story line was used before Iraq was invaded, therefore Iran can only conclude that an attack upon them is inevitable.

So, after listening to the American president and his rhetoric leading up to the invasion of Iraq, is the nation of Iran which is now facing the very same doubts and allegations from the US justified in any way if it feels the need to pre-emptively strike the US?

Would the world's opinion be that such a pre-emptive strike is an act of terror or an act of self defence?

You can't claim such an attack is unprovoked because the same story line was used before Iraq was invaded, therefore Iran can only conclude that an attack upon them is inevitable.

Apparently you haven't understood a thing I have said. Iran is not breaking conditions of a cease-fire treaty like Iraq, for more than a decade was. It is not the same situation. Military action by the US is not imminent. With Iraq (which was not a pre-emptive strike), we clearly told Saddam that he had to fulfill his treaty obligations, and when he did not, he was given an ultimatum. That isn't even close to what the Iranians are facing here. So, are they justified in attacking the US?

Weapons inspectors were in Iraq until a day or two before the start of hostilities.
Iraq was not violating anything other than squatting over top of Bush's friend's oil fields and being strategically placed to position military bases within easy reach of all Asia.

The Bush administration has been lecturing the American people about Iran's desire to produce an atomic weapon and their support of terrorist groups, just like the speeches on Iraq.

Were I an Iranian citizen, I'd be running for the hills.

Were I the Iranian Minister of Defence, I'd be weighing options in case the American president stepped up his war talk.

If the war talk escalates I see no option for Iran other than a first strike because it'll be the only strike they'll get before being overwhelmed.

Don't lay all that after the fact mumbo jumbo about Iraq violating any treaties on us either.
The day Bush was sworn in he started making plans to invade Iraq.
Sept 11 was simply a good excuse in his mind, nothing else.

Reason 1 for invading
Iraqi involvement in Sept 11
Reason 2
Nuclear program
Reason 3
WMD's
Reason 4
Saddam kills his own people
Reason 5
Spread democracy

Gimme a break

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html

This is a link to a written transcript of a Jim Lehrer interview with UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.

I'm sorry, but I find no information about treaty violations as part of the reasoning for invading Iraq.

I'd be happy to read anything you can provide us Qui-Gon.

PS: Can anyone tell me how to make these links active?

Everyone knows Bush lied about WMDs..I don't care how much you argue about dictionary definitions..that's just a refuge of someone who thinks that arguing a point on technicalities is the same as actually making a valid contribution to a discussion.

Here you go Robert NEWSMAKER: HANS BLIX

---

Reality Internet Personality