Bush's Lying To Start A War Is A War Crime!!!

[jon_forward]

left to The UN...nothing would have happened yet....saddam called G.W. bluff and lost hands down...if the threat of The UN could not get saddam to wake up why would it change with the UN backing us...that make it more likely that we would come and get him.... he thumbed his nose at the UN, The USA and the world for 12 years...he was told we were coming and choose to deny it to himself....can he deny it now??? he played a game of his choosing, with his rules and had his ass collectively handed to him...the world is a better place with saddam out...Iraq will be a better place with democracy in place....and in the long haul..all of the ME will be the winner...

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by MS36
a war that has killed and wounded tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi babies, children, women and men. and has unnecessarily destroyed the Iraqi Nation IS A MAJOR HOMICIDE WAR CRIME!!!!

an UNNECESSARY WAR!!!

The WARS FOR PROFIT...in Iraq

crimes against humanity.

The USA and England should withdraw their troops immediately and democratic free and open elections should take place in Iraq to restore the Iraqi government.

I don't understand.

If everything you say is true, shouldn't Saddam Hussein be put back in power? Why should there be free and open elections, a possibility only in the absence of Saddam Hussein, if it was wrong to make war against and remove Saddam Hussein? Clearly, by your logic, Saddam should be President for Life again. We can even help round up all the people he would have killed between now and the invasion, and give him lists of people who helped us before we go, so he can kill them, their families, and their friends too.

Take your time.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Bry
it won't do to derride admitedly laughable sources and then refer us to thedissidentfrogman.com.

That table has made the rounds more than once here, and it has been pointed out more than once that it shows nothing specific about sales of technology for WMDs. What has been demonstrated is that the US was implicated in selling strains of biological agents to iraq, and that the US was involved in helping draw up battle plans in the Iran Iraq war which included the use of such weapons when such use was outlawed by the international community.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with Russia and France acting to protect their business interests, a tactic the US has thoroughly embraced. I don't think, however, that they should be raised to the moral pedestal that much of the left has put them on.

The point stands, however, that Saddam was a convenient ally and passed quickly to being a convenient enemy. I think we'd do well to skip the moral arguments in favor of this war. Here, as always, morality had nothing to do with it.

Bry

Bald R. Dash

If you think there is nothing wrong with Russia and France acting to protect their economic interests - why do you disparage the U.S.'s right to protect its national security interests as well as its economic ones.

You can dispute the chart. The facts have been verified. The UNSC members who dug in their heels not to have the UN enforce Resolution 1441 are the same ones at the top of the list. Not coincidentally, Saddam's Oil for Cash gifting includes many citizens of these same countries.

Occam's Razor - The simplest explanation is often the correct one. In this case - those who profited from Saddam wanted to keep him in power and abused their roles in the UNSC to do so.

 

[Bry]

I've read many of your posts wonderwench, and I must say I have enjoyed many of them. I'm sure we can have a civil dialogue without resorting to petty dismissals like "Bald R. Dash".

I understand the criticisms of Russia and France, and in part I agree, AS I MADE CLEAR. France's pretensions to moral superiority are absurd, though I can't help but notice that the US has frequently cited moral justifications for policies that were clearly and simply pragmatic. The US has a long and time honored history of supporting whatever regime seems to best protect their political or economic interests without regard to the cost of human life and suffering, or alternatively, undermining any regime which does not fit into the agenda du jour. It seems dishonest to pretend that France and Russia (and Germany) should be judged by other standards. They at least can be said to have acted democratically, as the well documented anti- war movements in all three of those countries, (not to mention England and Spain) was represented by massive majorities. If we are to judge them by our own standards, as I think is always recommendable, they did what was right for them, what we would have done in a reversed situation.

With reference to the table which you so sensitively defend, not only does it fail to provide any breakdown of sales of chemical or biological weapons agents, but it covers such a broad extension of time as to be rendered completely useless for your argument that the decisions of France and Russia were purely self- serving. I'm sure you would agree that the sale of arms over a 30 year period does not begin to show an overriding economic interest NOW. If they did have a significant economic interest in Iraq, the sale of arms comprised a very small portion of that interest. Much more interesting was that they had contracts with Iraq to buy Iraq's oil. The point that you were refuting merely stated (granted without citing information) that weapons sold to Iraq by the US were used against the Iraqi population. The counter argument you offered with the cutting self-assurance implied by the words "you are misinformed" was at best irrelevant and at worst grossly misleading.

What you say of the UN may be true, but I insist that the situation was mishandled. By Clinton: the embargo should not have endured for the eight years Clinton was in office. Real pressure should have been consistently applied years ago, and Clinton passed the buck. Bush's response: in a matter of a few months, radically change the US policy from twelve years of status quo to demanding an immediate voluntary (or in the absence of such a miraculous rendition, involuntary) regime change. Consistent staunch pressure would have accomplished Iraq's compliance, or at least would have weakened the balking of such countries as France Germany and Russia and galvanized the international community, reinforced the UN (and thus international stability) and more favorably distributed the burden of the costs incurred in both human and economic terms.

The doctrine which in fact resulted, of preemptive war, has the result of retroactively justifying, at least in part, such dubious historical events as the Soviet invasion of what became the Eastern Block and of Afganistan, China's invasion of Tibet, and even the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The benefits of this new modus operandi vis a vis global terrorism? a net benefit for the terrorists in terms of decreased international stability and new and fertile recruiting grounds of new generations of orphans with pre-dispositions to radical Islamic thought.

It may wind up being a historical footnote, but the Bush administration's chosen emphasis on the existence of and danger represented by WMDs in Iraq to justify the war to the international community and at home has already proved catastrophic to our allies in England and Spain, and may well prove to be the downfall of an administration which at times enjoyed record approval ratings at home. A bitter error which appears in stark relief in the pale light of hindsight.


Finally, Occam's razor is an impartial weapon: the razor cares not who it cuts (at least the way you use it...). You say: "those who profited from Saddam wanted to keep him in power and abused their roles in the UNSC to do so." Just as we can look for the losers in this war, we can look for the winners: Guess who's equipping Iraq's new army. If what you say is true, then it follows that those that profited from a regime change ignored their obligations to the international community and acted to maximize their economic interests. In this case, however, the benefits are reaped not just at the expense of international stability, but on the fiscal shoulders of the American taxpayers to the delight of a select few corporate managers.

(In any case, your use of Occam's razor is fundamentally flawed. It was intended for use in symbolic logic and scientific theory. Originally, it was the "rule" that entities should not be needlessly multiplied, which is interpreted in two parts, first that the simplest (the argument which can be demonstrated with the least number of logical steps) of two competing theories is PREFERABLE, and second that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. In this case, Occam's razor would lead to an argument something like the following:1. IF France is a democratic country, and 2. IF the majority of the French population was against the invasion of Iraq, 3. THEN France could not have acted otherwise. For obvious reasons, Occam's razor is all but useless when hypothesizing about political and economic motivations.)

 

[spillmind]

The doctrine which in fact resulted, of preemptive war, has the result of retroactively justifying, at least in part, such dubious historical events as the Soviet invasion of what became the Eastern Block and of Afganistan, China's invasion of Tibet, and even the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The benefits of this new modus operandi vis a vis global terrorism? a net benefit for the terrorists in terms of decreased international stability and new and fertile recruiting grounds of new generations of orphans with pre-dispositions to radical Islamic thought.

...i honestly could not have said it better myself. well done, bry

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bry
I've read many of your posts wonderwench, and I must say I have enjoyed many of them. I'm sure we can have a civil dialogue without resorting to petty dismissals like "Bald R. Dash".

I understand the criticisms of Russia and France, and in part I agree, AS I MADE CLEAR. France's pretensions to moral superiority are absurd, though I can't help but notice that the US has frequently cited moral justifications for policies that were clearly and simply pragmatic. The US has a long and time honored history of supporting whatever regime seems to best protect their political or economic interests without regard to the cost of human life and suffering, or alternatively, undermining any regime which does not fit into the agenda du jour. It seems dishonest to pretend that France and Russia (and Germany) should be judged by other standards. They at least can be said to have acted democratically, as the well documented anti- war movements in all three of those countries, (not to mention England and Spain) was represented by massive majorities. If we are to judge them by our own standards, as I think is always recommendable, they did what was right for them, what we would have done in a reversed situation.

With reference to the table which you so sensitively defend, not only does it fail to provide any breakdown of sales of chemical or biological weapons agents, but it covers such a broad extension of time as to be rendered completely useless for your argument that the decisions of France and Russia were purely self- serving. I'm sure you would agree that the sale of arms over a 30 year period does not begin to show an overriding economic interest NOW. If they did have a significant economic interest in Iraq, the sale of arms comprised a very small portion of that interest. Much more interesting was that they had contracts with Iraq to buy Iraq's oil. The point that you were refuting merely stated (granted without citing information) that weapons sold to Iraq by the US were used against the Iraqi population. The counter argument you offered with the cutting self-assurance implied by the words "you are misinformed" was at best irrelevant and at worst grossly misleading.

What you say of the UN may be true, but I insist that the situation was mishandled. By Clinton: the embargo should not have endured for the eight years Clinton was in office. Real pressure should have been consistently applied years ago, and Clinton passed the buck. Bush's response: in a matter of a few months, radically change the US policy from twelve years of status quo to demanding an immediate voluntary (or in the absence of such a miraculous rendition, involuntary) regime change. Consistent staunch pressure would have accomplished Iraq's compliance, or at least would have weakened the balking of such countries as France Germany and Russia and galvanized the international community, reinforced the UN (and thus international stability) and more favorably distributed the burden of the costs incurred in both human and economic terms.

The doctrine which in fact resulted, of preemptive war, has the result of retroactively justifying, at least in part, such dubious historical events as the Soviet invasion of what became the Eastern Block and of Afganistan, China's invasion of Tibet, and even the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The benefits of this new modus operandi vis a vis global terrorism? a net benefit for the terrorists in terms of decreased international stability and new and fertile recruiting grounds of new generations of orphans with pre-dispositions to radical Islamic thought.

It may wind up being a historical footnote, but the Bush administration's chosen emphasis on the existence of and danger represented by WMDs in Iraq to justify the war to the international community and at home has already proved catastrophic to our allies in England and Spain, and may well prove to be the downfall of an administration which at times enjoyed record approval ratings at home. A bitter error which appears in stark relief in the pale light of hindsight.


Finally, Occam's razor is an impartial weapon: the razor cares not who it cuts (at least the way you use it...). You say: "those who profited from Saddam wanted to keep him in power and abused their roles in the UNSC to do so." Just as we can look for the losers in this war, we can look for the winners: Guess who's equipping Iraq's new army. If what you say is true, then it follows that those that profited from a regime change ignored their obligations to the international community and acted to maximize their economic interests. In this case, however, the benefits are reaped not just at the expense of international stability, but on the fiscal shoulders of the American taxpayers to the delight of a select few corporate managers.

(In any case, your use of Occam's razor is fundamentally flawed. It was intended for use in symbolic logic and scientific theory. Originally, it was the "rule" that entities should not be needlessly multiplied, which is interpreted in two parts, first that the simplest (the argument which can be demonstrated with the least number of logical steps) of two competing theories is PREFERABLE, and second that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. In this case, Occam's razor would lead to an argument something like the following:1. IF France is a democratic country, and 2. IF the majority of the French population was against the invasion of Iraq, 3. THEN France could not have acted otherwise. For obvious reasons, Occam's razor is all but useless when hypothesizing about political and economic motivations.)

Long. Wrong. same old song.

All countries proffer moral justifications for pragmatic acts. Your appeal to democracy is weak. Referendums on waging war is a bad idea, considering the top secret intel that often goes into the decision.
You don't think France should be judged to a double standard. why should we? Do you see the terrific irony of your statements?

The table. Is this the table of bribes paid to people from the Iraqui oil for food program? Why is it irrelevant again?

Oh. Consistent, staunch pressure would have worked? Why didn't you say so.

Comparing our liberation of oppressed to Russian invasions to annex adjacent territories is a specious intellectual act at best.

You explained occam's razor well. But I saw no convincing argument as to why it can't be used in politics. You just said it can't.

You cloak your bad arguments in good writing, but they're still bad arguments.

 

[Bern80]

they have and are telling when you see Bush allogations in conjunction w/ UFO sightings, something is a little fishy.

Whether Bush lied still remains to be seen. The evidence gathered so far only indicates that we have been working under some poor inteligence. Bush not being the first to do so. You borught up Rush Limbaugh who was gracious enough to let his listeners hear speech Clinton gave on WMD's in Iraq and it's threat to the world. Might want to check it out.

 

[eric]

Whether Bush lied still remains to be seen

Don't worry my liberal friends you will have another 4 years with GWB to find out !

Right you are bern and ww !

 

[Bry]

I would appreciate some actual responses. At some points, it even appears that you were attributing facets to my argument that simply aren't there.

All countries proffer moral justifications for pragmatic acts.

Yeah, I think that's what I said. So how is it that many in the US would criticise France for doing exactly what the US is doing? My point was not that France is good, but that their actions are unassailable from the vantage of someone who would defend the US along moral lines. What is left? Just a few million egocentrics who think anyone who doesn't agree with us should have their name erased from culinary recipes.

Your appeal to democracy is weak.

It's weak? Is that your idea of an argument? Short is fine and well, but say SOMETHING. In mentioning democracy (it was by no means "an appeal to democracy...) I was merely pointing out that France, Germany, and Russia did act democratically which even if it was merely coincincidence, is better than what happened in England and Spain. Apart from that, I used a mock argument to demonstrate why Accom's razor doesn't work in politics. More on that in a sec.

Referendums on waging war is a bad idea, considering the top secret intel that often goes into the decision.

By top secret intel, are you referring to US claims that not only did Iraq have WMDs but that we knew where they were? LOL Actually, that's a nice bit of ossified thinking which we might compare to trying to use musket tactics in a world of machine guns. If Saddam had not been so surprised by the invasion, he might have actually set up nice juicy defences where his world war II technology could be aniquilated in the open, rather than having an enormous percentage of his front line troops just fade into the population. Need I remind you that we have born more casualties since the declared end of the conflict than during?

In any case, the idea that the international community, ie the UN, is not the correct forum for making these decisions is perhaps a fundamental and irreconciliable difference between you and I. I think the UN should be used and respected because international stability is the greatest enemy of a terrorist.

You don't think France should be judged to a double standard. why should we? Do you see the terrific irony of your statements?

Didn't say that. I said the US shouldn't criticize France for doing what the US does. Look Mom, no irony!!!

The table. Is this the table of bribes paid to people from the Iraqui oil for food program? Why is it irrelevant again?

Not that table. go back and look for the link provided by wonderwench to thedissidentfrogman.com. I'm not familiar with the table of bribes paid to people from the Iraqui oil for food program, and if you would care to enlighten me, I'd be grateful.

Oh. Consistent, staunch pressure would have worked? Why didn't you say so.

Again, you disparage and offer no counter argument. I'll requote from my previous post just in case you care to actually address my argument:

"What you say of the UN may be true, but I insist that the situation was mishandled. By Clinton: the embargo should not have endured for the eight years Clinton was in office. Real pressure should have been consistently applied years ago, and Clinton passed the buck. Bush's response: in a matter of a few months, radically change the US policy from twelve years of status quo to demanding an immediate voluntary (or in the absence of such a miraculous rendition, involuntary) regime change. Consistent staunch pressure would have accomplished Iraq's compliance, or at least would have weakened the balking of such countries as France Germany and Russia and galvanized the international community, reinforced the UN (and thus international stability) and more favorably distributed the burden of the costs incurred in both human and economic terms."

Comparing our liberation of oppressed to Russian invasions to annex adjacent territories is a specious intellectual act at best.

Our liberation of oppressed? nice. You won't be surprised to find that the same sort of things were said by the Russians at every step. In fact, the idea of liberating the world from the Capitalist system was the mainstay of Communist propaganda. The fact that Capitalist propaganda uses exactly the same formulations does not constitute an argument on your part. To illustrate the point, it is commonplace in the ex Soviet block to hear people say "shit, we were better off back when..."

"Liberation", like "terrorism" is a matter of perspective.

You explained occam's razor well. But I saw no convincing argument as to why it can't be used in politics. You just said it can't.

Back to Occam's razor... the argument I provided for democracy was illustrative, not a real argument. According to Occam's razor, it would be the preferrable hypothesis because it is the simplest and it leaves out conjecture about motives to which we have no access. In politics, we are dealing with the human mind, not symbolically representable datum. Simply because I can imagine that George Bush paraded around intel on WMDs in order to toss his corporate buddies a very big bone, it is possible that it is true (to say nothing of plausible). However, the true motives of the human mind are not reducible to simple truth statements. Therefore, Occam's razor cannot be brought to bear.

Thanks for the compliment, Spillmind.

Bry

 

[jon_forward]

evening Bry..a few questions for you....
quote... So how is it that many in the US would criticise France for doing exactly what the US is doing?
-____________________________________________________- what did france do that we have??? we liberated the Iraqi people....france choose to try and protect their monetary interests over the Iraqi people..who along with Germany and Russia[for the same reasons as france] split the U.N...not that it made that much differance..the U.N. as we know it today bears little resimbilence to what the Org once was and stood for...I fear that the UN's time has past as a world Org, all bark and no bite....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote

I was merely pointing out that France, Germany, and Russia did act democratically
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100% pure accident...they were worried about their money...and their international good name... you cant take bribes from a terrorist/dictater and expect to get away scott free...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote....If Saddam had not been so surprised by the invasion....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
surprised my ass...he knew we were coming...he put his future in the hands of France,Russia and Germany and the rest of the shitbags he had bought with bribes....too bad they couldnt BS their way into stopping those that were not on the take..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote
What you say of the UN may be true, but I insist that the situation was mishandled. Real pressure should have been consistently applied years ago, Bush's response: in a matter of a few months, radically change the US policy from twelve years of status quo to demanding an immediate voluntary (or in the absence of such a miraculous rendition, involuntary) regime change. Consistent staunch pressure would have accomplished Iraq's compliance, or at least would have weakened the balking of such countries as France Germany and Russia and galvanized the international community, reinforced the UN (and thus international stability) and more favorably distributed the burden of the costs incurred in both human and economic terms
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as I have said before...how do you use a toothless UN to apply more pressure. for 12 years that is what the Un tried in vain to do. G.W.. did raise the bar..all saddam had to do was come clean..show the inspecters what you have or dont have...he refused for what ever reasons..but i think he thought that with the bribes he had paid to certain countrys/people he was safe. I remember a deadline being set that saddam could have stopped the forces but again choose not too... The choice made was not the right one for him and the rest of his group of terrorist thugs...

 

[kcmcdonald]

You have got to be kidding me man. This is ridiculious. how in god's name do you have the gual to post such a perpostruis message. Yeah Bush and gang went to war to fill thier pockets full of money. How about this when you actually get a line of evidence instead of what a wako thinks happened then make a statement about how Bush is a criminal. Heresay does not equal guilt. Oh and the laddy who's suing Bush for 9-11, guesse what it has nothing to do with the president and every thing to do with her blood sucking Lawyer. Oh and I thought you couldn't sue the Fed. Govt. Guess the lawyer doesn't feel like he has to follow rules.
Oh, and another thing Osmama's family is a very wealthy family in Saudi Arabia. They have ties to the roal family. so no it's not that hard to belive that a friend of the Saudi royal family met with Bush the Frist. So get over your consipiracy theories and read a newspaper you might actually learn something true.

 

[David]

Having read this thread, and been listening to all of the information spewing between the right, and left, I have one thing to say. I am glad we went to war, and freed the Iraqi people, and got rid of Hussein. However, we were told we were going to war because of WMD. There is a difference.

Personally, If GWB would of said we are going to war to get rid of Hussein, and free the Iraqi people, I would of been satisfied.
However, he didn't say that. He was warned that there were no WMD, but he wouldn't listen. Now all of the right wing media are bringing up the WMD on Iran, the killing his own people, etc, etc. I am glad we helped these people. But that is not what we were told. I believe that is what alot of peoples problem is. I don't feel we mistakenly went to war, I feel we were told the wrong reason for going to war. This is a political issue. If Clinton, or a democrat would of done the exact same thing, the Rush Limbaugh types of the world would be calling him a liar, a coward, bla, bla, bla.
Rush would start his show with "Day 211 since we invaded Iraq, and still no WMD" You know it, and I know it.

I just wish for once all politicians would put away their stupid party agenda, and do what is right for our country.

 

[socialchange7]

I totally agree. We have to get this guy out of office ASAP!!

You should all check out this woman's CD about Bush at amandalazar.com. It's hilarious. It's called "The Only Bush I Trust Is My Own". I've been listening to it on my way to work and it fuels my fire to get Bush out so that peace in this world has an opportunity to prevail.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Personally, If GWB would of said we are going to war to get rid of Hussein, and free the Iraqi people, I would of been satisfied

If you look carefully there were three reasons for the war
1osibillity of WMD's
2:saddams treatment of his people
3:his support and funding for terorism

It was decided that while the 2nd and the 3rd reasons were good enough to justify regiem change. however it was decided that those two reasons alone would not be enough to convince the International community of the urgency in Iraq. So the British and the American's went with the WMD's. They were however wrong(still got people looking) on that issue. But, the other two issues are totally undeniable.
WE HAD TO GO, or no one else would have!

 

[GameGuru]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
If you look carefully there were three reasons for the war
1osibillity of WMD's
2:saddams treatment of his people
3:his support and funding for terorism

It was decided that while the 2nd and the 3rd reasons were good enough to justify regiem change. however it was decided that those two reasons alone would not be enough to convince the International community of the urgency in Iraq. So the British and the American's went with the WMD's. They were however wrong(still got people looking) on that issue. But, the other two issues are totally undeniable.
WE HAD TO GO, or no one else would have!

Well said!

 

[sitarro]

Hey Jon ,
It was Gomer that said Surprise . . .surprise . . .surprise . Liked the post anyway .

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bry
I would appreciate some actual responses. At some points, it even appears that you were attributing facets to my argument that simply aren't there.


Yeah, I think that's what I said. So how is it that many in the US would criticise France for doing exactly what the US is doing? My point was not that France is good, but that their actions are unassailable from the vantage of someone who would defend the US along moral lines. What is left? Just a few million egocentrics who think anyone who doesn't agree with us should have their name erased from culinary recipes.


It's weak? Is that your idea of an argument? Short is fine and well, but say SOMETHING. In mentioning democracy (it was by no means "an appeal to democracy...) I was merely pointing out that France, Germany, and Russia did act democratically which even if it was merely coincincidence, is better than what happened in England and Spain. Apart from that, I used a mock argument to demonstrate why Accom's razor doesn't work in politics. More on that in a sec.


By top secret intel, are you referring to US claims that not only did Iraq have WMDs but that we knew where they were? LOL Actually, that's a nice bit of ossified thinking which we might compare to trying to use musket tactics in a world of machine guns. If Saddam had not been so surprised by the invasion, he might have actually set up nice juicy defences where his world war II technology could be aniquilated in the open, rather than having an enormous percentage of his front line troops just fade into the population. Need I remind you that we have born more casualties since the declared end of the conflict than during?

In any case, the idea that the international community, ie the UN, is not the correct forum for making these decisions is perhaps a fundamental and irreconciliable difference between you and I. I think the UN should be used and respected because international stability is the greatest enemy of a terrorist.


Didn't say that. I said the US shouldn't criticize France for doing what the US does. Look Mom, no irony!!!


Not that table. go back and look for the link provided by wonderwench to thedissidentfrogman.com. I'm not familiar with the table of bribes paid to people from the Iraqui oil for food program, and if you would care to enlighten me, I'd be grateful.

Again, you disparage and offer no counter argument. I'll requote from my previous post just in case you care to actually address my argument:

"What you say of the UN may be true, but I insist that the situation was mishandled. By Clinton: the embargo should not have endured for the eight years Clinton was in office. Real pressure should have been consistently applied years ago, and Clinton passed the buck. Bush's response: in a matter of a few months, radically change the US policy from twelve years of status quo to demanding an immediate voluntary (or in the absence of such a miraculous rendition, involuntary) regime change. Consistent staunch pressure would have accomplished Iraq's compliance, or at least would have weakened the balking of such countries as France Germany and Russia and galvanized the international community, reinforced the UN (and thus international stability) and more favorably distributed the burden of the costs incurred in both human and economic terms."



Our liberation of oppressed? nice. You won't be surprised to find that the same sort of things were said by the Russians at every step. In fact, the idea of liberating the world from the Capitalist system was the mainstay of Communist propaganda. The fact that Capitalist propaganda uses exactly the same formulations does not constitute an argument on your part. To illustrate the point, it is commonplace in the ex Soviet block to hear people say "shit, we were better off back when..."

"Liberation", like "terrorism" is a matter of perspective.



Back to Occam's razor... the argument I provided for democracy was illustrative, not a real argument. According to Occam's razor, it would be the preferrable hypothesis because it is the simplest and it leaves out conjecture about motives to which we have no access. In politics, we are dealing with the human mind, not symbolically representable datum. Simply because I can imagine that George Bush paraded around intel on WMDs in order to toss his corporate buddies a very big bone, it is possible that it is true (to say nothing of plausible). However, the true motives of the human mind are not reducible to simple truth statements. Therefore, Occam's razor cannot be brought to bear.

Thanks for the compliment, Spillmind.

Bry

Wrong Bry. You still don't get it. You still want to hold the U.S. to a higher standard. You're working your way up to the little known "quadruple standard". People only point out the hypocrisy of france and Russia because of your initial seeming ignorance of the topic. How you can concede that they do the same things, but STILL insist on holding the U.S. to a higher standard, is beyond me.

You just stated that occams's razor can only be used on datum and not the "mnds of men" yet you offered no proof or compelling argument to that effect, again. Occam's razor can be used on any subject matter, in any discipline. Your long winded statements don't prove jack skippy.

 

[Bry]

Quickly, then...

In this thread I have not criticized the actions of the US administration. The bulk of the argument here was simply that Americans defending American actions have no basis from which to criticize the actions of other nations. Those who live in glass houses don't throw stones, etc. I am not applying a double standard, I am criticizing your hypocrisy.

Human behavior is generally recognized to be influenced by a variety of factors simultaniously. That being said, to suggest that a given behavior is motivated by a single given factor (as Occam's Razor would indicate) is non-sensical. You may believe me or not believe me, as you choose. I am not nor do I have any interest in being your personal philosophy professor. I want you to feel free to use Occam's razor in any way that pleases you.

 

[Avatar4321]

First, i find it interesting that despite claims that Bush has lied to is, (which really started before 911) I have yet to see anyone explain where Bush has lied on any topic let alone on the topic of Iraq. Before you start going off on how Bush should die or something for lying to the American people, you really ought to prove your accusation.

As for the War in Iraq uncessary? Are you serious? This war should have happened years ago. We should have finished the job during Gulf War 1. Unfortunately the President didnt feel like we had a mandate for that. And of course we should have finished the job during the Clinton administrations but Clinton was so busy trying not to risk his legacy that he neglected his foriegn policy duties. Despite the claim that US policy towards Iraq was regime change, Clinton didnt back up his words.

Yet even though it was the policy of the previous administration to take out Iraq you seem to think its evil that Bush might have a plan for Iraq before 911. I mean come on duh. I hope he has plans for alot of nations we might have to deal with in the near future. Its not like these dictators are going away or going to get any nicer.

 

[sitarro]

Come on Avatar,
Didn't you know that a good leader starts planning for problems AFTER they occur.: