Re: Just out of interest, Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?


cosmicspin@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Questions wrote:
>
> > >"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
> > >had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
> > >of delivering chemical agents."
> >
> > Nobody I've known felt any fear at that disclosure. Anger perhaps, but
> > no fear. A sense of apprehension perhaps, but no fear.
> >
>
> In either case, it invoked a reaction. We shouldn't have to tolerate
> propaganda that induces 'reactions' and force Americans to make
> decisions with little factual information.

Now you no longer say it invoked fear. Only a reaction. Then you
introduce the word "propaganda" into a description of what the
President has stated. That's your opinion. My opinion is that the
word "propaganda" in this case, is misused and is a blatant attempt
to color your opinion as if it were fact. The remainder of the above
statement relies on the existence of the word "propaganda" and is
meaningless as a result.

Learn to express yourself with facts, not opinion. I think your opinion
is wrong. I am willing to discuss the facts with you however. Just
state the facts and we'll discuss them.

>
> > >How's that for causing fear in Americans?
> >
> > Nope. Only in your mind.
>
> I am sure there were plenty of people that felt worry about the
> statments above.

I'm sure there were as well. I'm just as sure that many people
thought we should have stayed out of WWI and WWII. If a President's
actions were dictated by a 100% agreeance of the American public, then
nothing would ever get done. The President was elected and holds the
office. That gives him permission to do what he thinks is right. If you
disagree, then impeach him. He will win against the impeachment and
continue to do what he thinks is right. His opinion of what is right is
a consolidation of information gathered by many, many people. Contrary
to what some of the more uninformed people who post here have said, he
doesn't decide things on his own.

>
> > Yes. I know that is what people thought. I heard it often enough. You
> > have drummed up this image of fear in your own mind.
> >
> > >In reality people felt
> > >that Saddam was a real threat that would be able to outdo a 9/11 .
> >
> > No they didn't.
>
> Alright, so we're in Iraq because?...

That question has been answered and re-answered so many times. I'm
not going to debate it again with you. We ARE in Iraq. Let's not
re-hash the reasons that got us there.

>
> >
> > >Since Americans were already on edge from 9/11, they were quite easy to
> > >convince of the Iraqi threat.
> >
> > An eventual threat to some, perhaps. Not to anyone in the continental
> > US.
>
> I disagree. The propoganda was hinting at nuclear arms to make Saddam
> look like a future threat to the US Mainland. This tactic was used on
> purpose to cause urgency in Congress.

Bull. No person with the resources that a Congressman/women has would
think anything of the kind. He had no delivery system that would get
anywhere outside of the mid-east. All of Congress knew that.

>
> > >It's people like you that just cannot
> > >admit you're wrong.
> >
> > You have no idea the type of person I am. Don't presume to think so,
> > it makes you look foolish.
>
> It seems to be your common behavior. I observe that you don't ever
> want to be wrong, even when the actual events happened in contrary to
> your views.

What kind of a person would WANT to be wrong? Of course I don't.
Please briefly cite those instances where the actual events happened in
contrary to my views that would prove my being wrong.

>
> > > >You'll follow a leader blindly because your more
> > >afraid of being wrong, than losing America to tyranny.
> >
> > What juvenile bull***.
>
> I disagree. You are willing to allow a president to abuse his position
> by starting wars that will amount to n-o-t-h-i-n-g. War is supposed to
> be limited to Congress. When was the last time Congress actually
> declared war?

Again, you make a statement that is filled with as much bull*** as the
one I responded too. If all you want to do is rant, then rant to
someone else. If you want to discuss, then discuss and leave crap like
"losing America to tyranny", "starting wars that will amount to
n-o-t-h-i-n-g", and other such opinionated crapola out of the
discussion unless you clearly state that it is your opinion and not
fact.

>
> > >Jeez! I must've hit a soft spot. You can say what you will, but you
> > >haven't offered any evidence in the contrary... Yet, there's plenty of
> > >video and reports that show otherwise. Go ahead, try me.
> >
> > Try you to do what? Show your ignorance of what Americans think? You
> > do well enough on your own. You don't need my help for that.
>
> Well, what do you think Americans believe? Keep in mind, 'Liberals'
> are Americans too.

As always, Americans believe what they wish. Do you mean the majority?
What do they believe in what context? Please don't assume that I
understand exactly what you mean. I don't. If I did, we wouldn't be
having this discussion.

>
> > >
> > >Who mentioned the church. Once again, you're putting words in my
> > >mouth.
> >
> > Evil is a church ideal. I'm an agnostic. I don't believe in the idea
> > of evil. Good or bad, yes. However, that isn't the same.
>
> I'm an atheist. Evil seems a good enough term to use, because it
> refers to acts that are selfish and hurtful to others. You might says
> it's a pointless term, but I disagree. There are people that are
> undeniably 'evil'. While I do not believe they are in league with
> Satan, I do believe that they are malicious and selfish.

Do you wish me to relate your usage of the word "evil" to that of a
person who is an extremely bad person? I don't agree with that
definition of evil, but I'll use it if you wish and understand my
opinion of the word.

That said, yes, I do agree that there are those people who are
undeniably evil.

>
> > >I am merely challenging those that claim they are moral, yet they allow
> > >immoral things to be done by their countrymen. I believe this is both
> > >a fault of the terrorists that believe their actions are moral and
> > >Americans who actually believe they are doing a favor in Iraq.

Hell man, you and I can discuss Morality until the proverbial cows come
home. The morality of any given person can change at the drop of a hat.
My idea of what is moral any your idea of what is moral may be miles
apart. We have to discuss this issue on a basis of facts, not morals.
Otherwise, we'll never resolve anything.

> >
> > I don't think about the morality of the wartime actions in Iraq. I
> > think of the long term outcome of the conflict. I would like to see a
> > world that this type of action would be unnecessary in, but our world
> > is not yet at that stage of evolution.
>
> On the contrary, I think the Iraq invasion is actually pushing the
> world back several decades in what it's accomplished. We are directly
> playing into the terrorist whims by doing what we're doing.

Again, this is your opinion. I don't agree with what you've said in
it's entirtiy. Evolution is a one way street. It cannot go backwards.
Advances can be negated however, and I think that's what you're
trying to say.

If so, then I most heartily agree with you. Each time a person uses
violence to accomplish a goal; it's negating the human evolution to a
minute degree. If that action is repeated enough times, within a close
enough interval, then the negation of evolution would be magnified. In
the case of the current situation in Iraq, I don't think that this
little piss-ant war has, nor will it have, any lasting impact on the
evolution of our species in any negative way. On the contrary, I think
that this incidence of the animalistic tendency to violence may indeed
hasten our evolvement away from this type of instinctive response. I
would be glad to expound on this idea if you wish.

>Terrorism
> is not a nation, nor is it a static group of people.

Terrorists are definable, depending of course, on which side of the
fence you stand.

>
> It is interesting that you seem to imply that you'd like a world that
> doesn't need war.

Why would you find it "interesting" that I would like to see our
species evolve into that which doesn't require the use of violence to
suppress the actions of a person or group of people who would cause
great harm to another person or group of people? I would love to come
back in a million years and see that mad dogs were no longer a threat
to people. I would love to see that violence would not be necessary to
subdue these mad dogs. However, I don't believe that you and I will
see that type of world within our lifetimes. In our lives, I believe
that violence will always be necessary in many circumstances.

>The US invasion of Iraq can be used to justify many
> actions in the coming decades. Most of these actions favor violence
> over peaceful means.

Give me some examples of what actions you see happening in the future
that would be an offshoot of the current Iraq situation. I have no way
of knowing what you forecast.

>
> > >wasn't the best the Republican Party could produce. Something always
> > >bothered me about him. My suspicions where proven with what happened
> > >in Iraq and beyond. Unlike others, I'm not filled with pure hatred of
> > >Bush. I just think he's a terrible manager (as he's shown many times
> > >in the past) and that people under him have taken advantage of this and
> > >have installed their own visions in the Whitehouse. Bush is also a tad
> > >too pushy with his religious views. I don't agree with his use of God
> > >or faith, especially when our nation is composed of many people from
> > >different walks of life.
> >
> > That is one of the most reasonable statements I've ever heard you say.
> >
> > I disagree with most of it, but it is a valid opinion.
> >
> > If you speak with respect to the office of the President and with
> > common courtesy, I would be more than glad to do the same when
> > speaking with you.
> >
> > I'm glad we had this chance to clear the air a bit. Perhaps we can
> > have more discussions in a civil manner. I would like that.
>
> I would like that as well. The United States cannot simply be a nation
> ruled by one view, it needs to be a compromise between different views.
> The only view that cannot be compromised on, are the views that give
> any of the branches of government too much power. Those views are what
> pose the biggest danger to America.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe that the
scenario you present is what is happening at this time. No "one
view" is ruling the USA. That would be impossible. Further, I don't
believe that it's possible for any branch of government to have too
much power, given our system of checks and balances. Any time that
excessive power might be temporarily in existence, the actions of those
with that power will still be governed by those whose task is to
balance that power. In other words, I feel that even in the case of a
"Mad Hatter", no buttons could be pushed without the express
permission of the people who are in place to watch over those very
buttons.

I will add that I'm glad that you and I can have this discussion
without the inclusion of anger.

I look forward to your reply.

.