If I know that thousands of people are being murdered in a house, I would gladly and cheerfully and enthusiastically use dishonest means to gain access to that house in order to stop the injustice.
Anybody who would turn their back on the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people by their own government is, in my book, a coward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott
You see, that would be fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that our own citizens are being sent to war for a cause that is far from clear.
How is it far from clear? One word: Liberate. That's the clear goal. Do you need it typed in a special font to understand it?
Quote:
If we're liberators, then why Iraq?
Because Saddam wasn't tyrant of Canada. He was the tyrant of Iraq, and Iraq doesn't have China or Russia backing it. It was a clear and easy choice.
Quote:
Why now?
Why not now?
Quote:
Because of 9/11 like you said before?
When did I say that? 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. I said that it was a policy shift after 9/11. A policy shift that changed how we deal with tyrants.
Quote:
That makes no sense at all.
Of course it makes no sense - you just made up a statement, attributed it to me, and expect it to make sense?
Quote:
The freedom of the Iraqi population has no effect on the security and safety of the united states. A response as a result of the 9/11 attacks would be a response to a perceived threat. And what was that threat? Yep, WMD.
Like I said, it was done to liberate Iraq, not to counter any threat.
Quote:
So which is it? Did we invade Iraq because its people were suffering under a cruel dictator? Or did we invade Iraq because we needed to protect our own citizens from further terrorist threats?
Damn, do you not read at all? How many times do I need to say this? Maybe I'll just put it in your signature so it's harder for you to forget? Liberate, liberate, liberate.
Quote:
And ignorance is bliss. The world because very clear and full of easy solutions when you choose to take everything at face value.
Um, that sentence makes no sense. Care to rephrase?
You'll have to forgive my redundancy, it wasn't completely clear that you acknowledged the administration's masking of its true intent.
Let me explain why.
You claim that when comparing bush's administration to clinton's, the clinton years take the cake when it comes to dishonesty.
By your own repeated statements (again, to clarify things for me), it is clear that this administration lied to its own citizens to pursue its own goal. Yes, we've beaten this to death. Yes, I'm being redundant again. But I need to make a point with that.
What are the effects of this lie? How many people have had their emotions screwed with?
Do you think everybody is as smart as you and others here to know that there was some serious manipulation going on here?
How many mothers no longer have sons, and in their mind believe that their own flesh and blood gave their lives in the name of protection against a perceived threat?
To serve in the military is a noble thing, and it's a slap in the face to the country's citizens to so easily mix and match the reasons in which our sons, fathers, brothers, and sisters are putting their lives on the line.
Think about all the words that came out of bush's mouth about WMD, and how many speeches he gave about the severity of the Iraqi threat.
War is no light subject. This much is obvious to everybody.
So I don't understand, with all the above stated, that you can honestly say that these types of lies are less severe than what went on during Clinton's administration.
Again, my apologies for being so redundant, and lacking the ability to read what you're telling me in simple english. I've been responding to you as if you didn't accept these lies, my mistake there. I guess it's just hard to believe that you do realize these lies when you say they're less severe than a money or sex scandal.
So I don't understand, with all the above stated, that you can honestly say that these types of lies are less severe than what went on during Clinton's administration.
First, nobody knows whether or not Bush lied or whether he honestly believed the reports that he was given stating that Iraq had WMD. So it's not with a whole lot of authority that anybody can call him a liar.
But that is of course beside the point. The American people supported the war in Iraq because they believed that it was intended to liberate the country. This is evidenced by the continued support of the war after it became clear that no WMD were to be found. It's evidenced by the statements of the soldiers on the ground in Iraq.
The whole WMD issue is a non-issue, used only by those cowards who would have happily seen Saddam remain in power, murdering and raping his own citizenry.
And, on the issue of Clinton's lies, I think he did a great deal of damage to the American culture. He taught young men (and old) that it was ok to lie. He taught America is was ok to perjure oneself in court, while he sent others to prison for the same offense. He taught America that honor and integrity are silly, stupid concepts. He was a role model that taught it was ok to shirk responsiblity, commit fraud, and sweep the deaths of his own soldiers under the rug when the pressure was on.
I say Clinton had a huge, negative impact on the culture of the country.
And, on the issue of Clinton's lies, I think he did a great deal of damage to the American culture. He taught young men (and old) that it was ok to lie. He taught America is was ok to perjure oneself in court, while he sent others to prison for the same offense. He taught America that honor and integrity are silly, stupid concepts. He was a role model that taught it was ok to shirk responsiblity, commit fraud, and sweep the deaths of his own soldiers under the rug when the pressure was on.
I say Clinton had a huge, negative impact on the culture of the country.
I thought it was Nixon that did that? Or most of it anyway. Clinton was just filling in the blanks, IMO.
I thought it was Nixon that did that? Or most of it anyway. Clinton was just filling in the blanks, IMO.
Really? I wouldn't know. When he resigned I was 4 years old, so the only thing I ever knew about Nixon was in regards to the Watergate scandal and the subsequent illegal coverup. Kind of seems like child's play next to Clinton's fraud, sexual assault, perjury, etc.
The sad thing is, if you can get past the crookedness, he did a lot of good things too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
But he was a man with no principles whatsoever when it came to appropriating and/or keeping power.
Isn't the political game built on spin and spin control? I believe that the politician with the best reputation(best spin) is the one that just has not been caught doing all of those bad things that politicians do! Clinton just had a lot of bad habits(what we saw was probably just the tip of the iceberg!) and was a character, but had no character!( I stole that line from pulp Fiction) George Bush has better character than Clinton, but also has daddy watching, so maybe better behavior!
Innocent until caught?!
George Bush has better character than Clinton, but also has daddy watching, so maybe better behavior!
Linear Mode
