President Bush: Is He a Liar?

An eye for an eye until all the world is blind.

Personally, I detest war.

The problem, Advocate, is that I understand the need for war. A concept that seems to be beyond the grasp of many on the left the decry "War at no cost".

You also do not really have any idea what you are talking about most of the time, do you?

100,000 dead? deserter? No experience in the Bush family?

Please.

McGentrix wrote:

Personally, I detest war.

The problem, Advocate, is that I understand the need for war. A concept that seems to be beyond the grasp of many on the left the decry "War at no cost".

You also do not really have any idea what you are talking about most of the time, do you?

100,000 dead? deserter? No experience in the Bush family?

Please.

Speaking of grasp McG, are you still practicing the prehensile thing I tried to teach you. Practice makes perfect, I am sure you will figure it out in time (how old are you?)

xingu wrote:

I don't care if Saddam wanted to assissnate Bush or not. That is not a reason to invade Iraq.

How many times have we tried to kill Castro? I suppose it's alright for us to try to kill other nations leaders but it's a sin if they do it to us.

If country X tries to assasinate a present or former national leader of country Y, then country Y has a perfect right to respond by going to war with country X. Whether Y has the ability to do so successfully is another matter. I believe this is true no matter which two countries are involved. I shall ignore the usual stupid questions asking me to clarify this opinion.

Brandon9000 wrote:

xingu wrote:

I don't care if Saddam wanted to assissnate Bush or not. That is not a reason to invade Iraq.

How many times have we tried to kill Castro? I suppose it's alright for us to try to kill other nations leaders but it's a sin if they do it to us.

If country X tries to assasinate a present or former national leader of country Y, then country Y has a perfect right to respond by going to war with country X. Whether Y has the ability to do so successfully is another matter. I believe this is true no matter which two countries are involved. I shall ignore the usual stupid questions asking me to clarify this opinion.

Ah. So the US had the right to go to war with Iraq because Saddam wanted to assassinate Bush. In turn, Cuba would have the right to go to war with the US because the US tried to assassinate Fidel.

However, Cuba doesn't have the military power to do that. But might makes right, and if Cuba could form a coalition of the willing (preferably with other countries that had their heads of state threatened or assassinated by the US) to invade America, then it would be perfectly alright.

McG, we deposed, or had a hand in deposing, the elected leaders of Iran, the Congo, Chile, et al. Thus, your view is that those countries should immediately attack us, regardless of whether this is rational, good for their people, etc.

Attacking Iraq was stupid and is hurting our country in many ways. But Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al., are not hurt in any way. Their kids, like those of almost all the upper class, don't serve.

Did you even read what I said? It's one thing to try to refute my position, but another to repeat it inaccurately after it's been stated clearly.

<snip>

However, if they attempted to assasinate former president Bush, and simply were unlucky and were foiled at an early stage, then we would certainly be justified in invading them for that alone.

McG, we deposed, or had a hand in deposing, the elected leaders of Iran, the Congo, Chile, et al. Thus, your view is that those countries should immediately attack us, regardless of whether this is rational, good for their people, etc.

Attacking Iraq was stupid and is hurting our country in many ways. But Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al., are not hurt in any way. Their kids, like those of almost all the upper class, don't serve.

Useless hypothetical question, no possibility of an answer. All we can say with certainty is that a whole ****-ton of people are dead now because of the choice we made.

You still don't understand the 'kill a child to save a village' analogy. The ends never justify the means used to achieve them.

Cycloptichorn

Brandon9000 wrote:

Did you even read what I said? It's one thing to try to refute my position, but another to repeat it inaccurately after it's been stated clearly.

<snip>

However, if they attempted to assasinate former president Bush, and simply were unlucky and were foiled at an early stage, then we would certainly be justified in invading them for that alone.

Nah. Just trying to understand your position. You're establishing some general rules here, and I'm trying to see what merit they have.

Okay. So let's say Cuba was justified to invade the USA. Now, let's for the sake of this discussion assume that Cuba was a military superpower with a population of 290 million, and the USA were a small but wealthy country, a democracy with a population of, uh, 15 million.

Now, if Cuba was to invade the USA - would Americans have the right to fight back, even after the goverment was toppled and a new form of government had been introduced? Would they have the right to kill Cuban soldiers? If Americans would be allowed to fight back, what means would they have the right to employ?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Useless hypothetical question, no possibility of an answer. All we can say with certainty is that a whole ****-ton of people are dead now because of the choice we made.

You still don't understand the 'kill a child to save a village' analogy. The ends never justify the means used to achieve them.

Cycloptichorn

If an evil madman with a history of trying to annex his neighbors is developing doomsday weapons, one has perfect justification to use military force to stop it, if one has given negotiation a reasonable chance. Self-preservation is good moral justification. Your moral assertion seems to imply that one may not go to war to save lives unless it can be guaranteed that there will be no civilian casualties.

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Did you even read what I said? It's one thing to try to refute my position, but another to repeat it inaccurately after it's been stated clearly.

<snip>

However, if they attempted to assasinate former president Bush, and simply were unlucky and were foiled at an early stage, then we would certainly be justified in invading them for that alone.

Nah. Just trying to understand your position. You're establishing some general rules here, and I'm trying to see what merit they have.

Okay. So let's say Cuba was justified to invade the USA. Now, let's for the sake of this discussion assume that Cuba was a military superpower with a population of 290 million, and the USA were a small but wealthy country, a democracy with a population of, uh, 15 million.

Now, if Cuba was to invade the USA - would Americans have the right to fight back, even after the goverment was toppled and a new form of government had been introduced? Would they have the right to kill Cuban soldiers? If Americans would be allowed to fight back, what means would they have the right to employ?

I refuse to allow you to evade your losing position by opening up new lines of discussion. If country X tries to kill the ruler or a past ruler of country Y, country Y is justified in attacking country X as a response. Do you agree or disagree?