DianaC wrote:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:Vt%te.7632$jX6.2146@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

snip

There are a lot of threads on AA which involve the lousy moral values of
certain theists, and I don't recall ever reading you attacking the lousy
morals of these theists. Maybe you have and I missed it, but it seems to
me you've had plenty of opportunity to establish such a history, yet you
haven't. That's all I meant.

My 'history' is long and quite clear. Judge from the posts I have
written. To judge from threads that I haven't participated in...that's
ludicrous.

yeah, but it tells us a lot.

igtheist wrote:

J Forbes wrote:

igtheist wrote:

I don't think that argument works. Getting ahead in politics is all
about not letting people know your true opinions. If every
politician were to give their true opinion on each subject they would
end up alienated most of the voters. Thus the smart ones don't let
on what they are for or against. Most successful politicians are
"liars".

I do believe that the president has lied about certain things. I think
he was mistaken about others. I don't think that amounts to being
responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. That's because no
matter what his actions there would have been tens of thousands of
deaths.

I hope I have made this vague enough that it cannot be contested
because I really don't want to get involved in a long set of arguments
with a bunch of "Bush lied, people died" nuts.

We have no way of knowing what "might have happened", true.

But also I still have not read any solid explanation for the invasion
of Iraq. I don't know why Bush did it.

If he would actually tell us
why he did it, if he even knows, then I might be able to suppose that
he was justified.

He did tell you. Go back and read what he was saying before the
invasion. It wasn't just WMD. It was about Saddams violations of the
agreements that lead to the cease-fire, getting rid of a despot, etc.
The WMD became a top issue only because that was the only thing the
U.N. was going to get behind (while taking oil-for-food kickbacks).

You can disagree with his reasons but it is just a strawman to claim it
was only about WMD or no reason what-so-ever. Your ignorance of any
reasons doesn't mean there weren't any.

I recall the argument went something like this: Iraq is a threat to
our national security, because they have a serious and effective WMD
program, and they are harboring terrorists. Also, Saddam is a nasty guy.

Furthermore, it is a complete fabrication to say that Bush lied about
WMD in order to get us to invade. Why? Because at the time Saddam
was selling everyone on the idea he had them. Everyone was buying.
You can go back and get quotes from Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary
Clinton, and many others who were claiming Saddam had WMD. This even
before Bush was president in some cases. This includes Russia and
other anti-invasion countries, based on their own intelligence. So
Saddam tricked everyone, and who's fault is that?

I didn't believe Saddam when he said he had them, the UN guys couldn't
find them, so why did the politicians say they believed him? perhaps
because of some unstated political reasons? I don't know.

All I've read from him is deception.

What like these deceptive statements:

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more
the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of
mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us
unnoticed.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in
his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they
can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the
United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass
destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Yeah, like those statements. You can find a lot of deceptive Bush
quotes to add to them, I'm sure.

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off
without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not
safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the
credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is
better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec03/193182.asp?format=print

I agree somewhat with this, but not with the reasons given for going
into Iraq by Bush.

Then again, Saddam wa a nuisance, but Iraqis are now killing
Americans, and harboring terrorists, at a much faster clip than they
were when Saddam was in control. I don't know how much longer he
would have lasted, and it's likely that things would fall apart when
he finally did go out of power for whatever reason. But we probably
wouldn't be bearing the brunt of the vengance.

Funny thing is that I am no Bush fan. I really don't like the idea of
spending lots of US dollars to rebuild Iraq. I think the Iraqis
should pay for that on their own dime. Kind of silly to pay
reparations to a country that invaded Kuwait and didn't abide by the
ceasefire, don't you think.

We're fucked now, but we didn't have to go in there in the first
place. It might or might not have been jutifiable on some grounds,
but the justification given just didn't add up.