Cost of War

by teejay 135 Replies latest social current

• 

  Abaddon

  dubla:

  Firstly I can see seperation betwixt Kerry and Bush. Even if everything you've said in that respect is true, if you choose to class the originator in the same class as another distributor of the lies and deciet, you may as well erase the distinction in law between collaboration in criminal activity before or after the event.

  Somehow someone who helps a friend hide a body when their friend has a body to hide is held less accountable than someone who plans with their friend beforehand how they will dispose of the body; it's a logical legal distinction, and it's unusual for you to be unlogical in this way by claiming there's no seperation on this issue between Kerry and Bush.

  Of course, I do notice it seems you are never going to admit the chain of events and contributory factors I've discussed here would lead a reasonable person to assume that the bad information given out was the result of design, rather than a set of unlikely coincidences (that also helped allow action in-line with the policies of those carrying out those actions), but can't actually fault the information that leads to this conclusion.
• 

  dubla

  abaddon-

  Firstly I can see seperation betwixt Kerry and Bush. Even if everything you've said in that respect is true, if you choose to class the originator in the same class as another distributor of the lies and deciet,

  well, first off, is bush really the "originator"? its funny....the bush administration get criticized for using much of the same intelligence that was left over from the clinton administration, but when it suits the argument bush is of course the first president to make us believe saddam was a threat to our nation.

  Somehow someone who helps a friend hide a body when their friend has a body to hide is held less accountable than someone who plans with their friend beforehand how they will dispose of the body; it's a logical legal distinction

  if the dead body was a friend of mine, and later (after the truth of the killing had come out) i had to choose one of those two men to trust, which one would i choose? i dont think i could trust either of them.

  in this case though, we arent talking about which one is more at fault (as your example about law implies), we, as voters, are trying to differentiate between the two of them on issues. when it comes to the belief that saddam had wmds and was a grave threat to our nation, there is no distinction....thats one issue. what youre doing is taking that issue one step farther and saying there is a distinction because bush went to war over these beliefs, and kerry only voted to let him. so, basically bush lied to take us to war, and kerry lied and voted in favor of giving bush the authority to go to war. i guess the voters have to decide how much of a difference that really is.

  Of course, I do notice it seems you are never going to admit the chain of events and contributory factors I've discussed here would lead a reasonable person to assume that the bad information given out was the result of design

  if a "reasonable person" would have to come to that conclusion, then that same "reasonable person" would have to include clinton in this "design". if he didnt start the fear over saddams wmds, he definitely increased it....and he gave us the same information about what the "intelligence" told us was in iraq, namely huge stockpiles of wmds. so, if there is some specific design dating back to the eighties, clinton would have to play a major role in this plan, which kind of shoots holes in the theory that its a neo-con-spiracy, doesnt it?

  aa
• 

  Abaddon

  dubla

  Oh come on, you know Bush was in nappies the first time they pulled this game (or in a bar). It's the same team as in the '70's that are the originators. Joking aside, I do not believe that George Bush Junior is stupid enough to be totally unaware of the situation. If he is you may as well have Cheyne stick his hand up George's ass so he's a real muppet.

  Whilst you might not trust either body-hider, in law there's a clear apportioning of guilt in such circumstances. Are you indicating you will not vote/waste your vote on an Independant, as neither is worth it? Or is it private?

  And Clinton. for all his faults, was not lining up stategic targets for extra-territorial military excursions in line with a policy to increase American military power. The current reigeme are.

  Listen to the rumbles about Iran being "a threat" and see where the neo-con-spiracy (I like that) is headed on the Hegemony highway.

  Unlike North Korea, they couldn't put up much of a fight; you see the neo-cons know that they can only work this game if the body count is low and slow.

  Fight someone with a decent army and the large loss of American life would sour the taste rather quickly at home. That's why Iraq was such a good target; it was essentially defenceless. A step-up from tiny islands or Central American countries maybe, but still defenceless.

  Pity they ddn't plan on actually increasing terrorism within Iraq by their actions.

  Do you reckon if you make everyone share in the guilt you can avoid admitting where the guilt stems from and thus avoid acting on that admission?

  I barely know you but I can't believe you would think that. It's silly.
• 

  dubla

  abaddon-

  I do not believe that George Bush Junior is stupid enough to be totally unaware of the situation.

  so, bush isnt stupid enough to be unaware of this conspiracy, but clinton is? so basically, bush is smarter than clinton?

  Whilst you might not trust either body-hider, in law there's a clear apportioning of guilt in such circumstances. Are you indicating you will not vote/waste your vote on an Independant, as neither is worth it?

  i really cant figure out if youre missing the point, or intentionally going around it to further your argument. you have made the statement that bush deceived in order to create fear, and all ive done is shown that if that is true, then kerry has done the same. when it comes to my vote however, this point of intentional deception is really moot given the fact that i dont believe either candidate lied about wmds.....i think they both believed they were there, just as clinton did. so you can go round and round about who is worse when it comes to lying about the threat, but if i dont believe that either candidate was "lying", its really not going to make a lot of difference to me, is it?

  as far as the independents go, i dont believe we have a viable choice outside of bush and kerry....if we did, i very well might support the libertarian candidate.

  And Clinton. for all his faults, was not lining up stategic targets for extra-territorial military excursions in line with a policy to increase American military power. The current reigeme are.

  again, youre getting off the issue at hand, specifically: who lied about wmds to create fear. did clinton? or was he duped by the neo-cons? seriously, which do you believe?

  aa
• 

  Abaddon

  Again, what is your obsession with democrats? Even if they are in it up to the eyeballs, it is a plan (if true) from the right wing of the Republican party.

  Point your finger anywhere you like, that is a central fact, and getting power AS FAR AWAY from them as possible seems prudent.

  We also seem to differ on our level of trust.

  Despite the fact this is the SECOND time it happened, you feel there couldn't be any deliberate act by the President.

  To me, that just seems to be you imprinting your desires and expectations of honesty on a politician, which is a bit like printing dollar bills on shit. I have always, for the longest period, maintained that politicins lie, by definiton.

  As in both the USA and the UK we do not have a truely represetative system of democrcay (the effective two party systems), if the choice is between a liar and the bigger and original liar, I know where I will/would vote. It's not good, but it's better than the other option.

  All the best
• 

  dubla

  abaddon-
  

  why is it so hard to answer a simple question? would your honest answer jeopardize part of your stance? you really like to skirt around clinton every time he is brought up.
  

  Again, what is your obsession with democrats?

  again, i could care less about the democrats and their role in this conspiracy......i only point to the democrats because their own records shoot major holes in the theory (you dont seem to understand that theres a big difference between attacking the democrats and attacking your argument). imo, if this was a neo-con-spiracy, clinton would never be a part of it (and if he would be, then it wouldnt be a "republican baby" at all, it would be a joint effort)........so, to admit that clinton would had to have been pushing the agenda just as much as any republican would completely destroy your thesis. this is why, i assume, you refuse to address the question about clinton.
  

  I have always, for the longest period, maintained that politicins lie, by definiton.

  so have i, and if youve read any of my past posts (i know you have because youve responded to them), then you already know this. if you mean to say that kerry and bush both lied, i can surely admit thats a possibility (even if its not what i see as the logical conclusion).....if your opinion is that bush lied and kerry didnt (you havent come out and said that....youve actually avoided giving a concrete answer), then your opinion would hold absolutely no water with me, because it will be completely partisan and without logical backing.
  

  if the choice is between a liar and the bigger and original liar, I know where I will/would vote.

  again, bush isnt the "original liar" when it comes to iraq....clinton pushed the issue of wmds before bush ever got into office. it is in fact during clintons time in office that i personally came to believe saddam was a threat because of his stockpiles (not from clintons statements per se, but because of saddams own admissions and actions......for the purpose of this discussion, though, it was during the clinton era that "wmds" were shoved down all of our throats).......so who deceived me? taking your statement and applying it to my situation, i guess i have to choose between two sides......the original source of my misinformation (a democrat), and the the next guy who carried on with the exact same stance on saddam (a republican). that is fact no matter how you try to spin it....wolfowitz didnt convince me, and he didnt convince this nation........this nation was convinced during clintons time in office. your argument is that even if clinton is the one who spread the lies, so long as they were given to him by wolfowitz (or someone else in this "team" of conspirators) its the republicans we have to worry about....right? if true that makes clinton look like a bigger puppet than bush could ever be...so i really doubt thats your actual stance.....i could be wrong. why not put them all on the same side of the playing field because they all held the same stance on iraq? too easy? would it damage the idealized view of the left too much to do that?

  aa