Dead Afghani children piling up, are the board democrats outraged?

[G.T.]

Seeing as congress bi-partisanly voted for the war based on intel from US agencies as well as intel from other countries...

I have reason to believe that the war was deemed as warranted....and I will always argue with those that claim the intel said otherwise.....even though I never had access to the intel.

Of course, I am smart enough to realize that the likes of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi simply said they were "lied to" for political expediency.

I wonder how far you've researched the accuracy of the intel that you don't have access to in order to make your final determination as to the War being justified vs. not?

Why did you ignore the first part of my post?
Seeing as most of the intel was classified...including the foreign nation intel....I was forced to make an educated decision based on the actions of those that had access to the intel....our congress and President. (that's not an Educated decision, it's not a decision at all. It's simply trusting their decision and in effect an acknowledgement that you have faith in Washington to do the right thing).

Or I guess I could apply no thought and reasoning whatsoever and therefore not come up with an opinion and eliminate all debate...

Which, for some reason, is the direction you seem to imply we should go. (it's the only rational one. Do you choose a school for your kids without gathering all of the info on the school first? Do you buy a house not knowing the approximation of your taxes? Without getting an inspection? It's the same thing, except worse. Why is it worse? You're justifying or not justifying the killing of people using INCOMPLETE data. How is that hard to believe that one would be AGAINST making said decision with incomplete data?)



Nope...I appl;y all I can find out and take a position...

in this case:

President deemed intel was correct and made war worthy
Congress biparetisanly deemed intel was correct and made war worthy
Other nations deemed THEIR intel was correct and deemed war was worthy.

Me? Was not allowed to see intel.....so I had to base my opinion on the actions of those that did. (no, you didn't have to have an opinion at all, you could have in fact just admitted that you don't really know everything involved, which you don't, and which is the rational approach). Whats wrong with that?

Answers in there.

 

[Jarhead]

I wonder how far you've researched the accuracy of the intel that you don't have access to in order to make your final determination as to the War being justified vs. not?

Why did you ignore the first part of my post?
Seeing as most of the intel was classified...including the foreign nation intel....I was forced to make an educated decision based on the actions of those that had access to the intel....our congress and President. (that's not an Educated decision, it's not a decision at all. It's simply trusting their decision and in effect an acknowledgement that you have faith in Washington to do the right thing).

Or I guess I could apply no thought and reasoning whatsoever and therefore not come up with an opinion and eliminate all debate...

Which, for some reason, is the direction you seem to imply we should go. (it's the only rational one. Do you choose a school for your kids without gathering all of the info on the school first? Do you buy a house not knowing the approximation of your taxes? Without getting an inspection? It's the same thing, except worse. Why is it worse? You're justifying or not justifying the killing of people using INCOMPLETE data. How is that hard to believe that one would be AGAINST making said decision with incomplete data?)



Nope...I appl;y all I can find out and take a position...

in this case:

President deemed intel was correct and made war worthy
Congress biparetisanly deemed intel was correct and made war worthy
Other nations deemed THEIR intel was correct and deemed war was worthy.

Me? Was not allowed to see intel.....so I had to base my opinion on the actions of those that did. (no, you didn't have to have an opinion at all, you could have in fact just admitted that you don't really know everything involved, which you don't, and which is the rational approach). Whats wrong with that?

Answers in there.

Now I see you arguing just for the sake of arguing.
There are many things I am forced to decide upon without having access to all of the information...and I can simply sit back and refuse to decide or make an educated decision.

You cite things that offer easy access to information such as colleges and houses.

But we do not always have access to info...and therefore need to apply logic and reasoniong to make an educated decision...and here is howe I came to mine....

getting bi partisan support for anything is tuff in DC....but they got it for the war BASED ON THE INTEL

Foreign countries ALSO agreed thast THEIR intel gve reason to consider war was warranted.

Now...I can sit by and say they are all liars.....
I can sit by and say I dont give a fuck
Or I can use my brain and say......

they all agree the intel says what they claim it says...ALL OF THEM.....no one is saying the intel says something else......NO ONE...some are saying the intel says wht they claim but is against war in general.......BUT NO ONE IS SAYING THE INTEL SAYS SOMETHING ELSE.

No one. No other country, no one who saw the intel on the left and no one who saw it on the right.

SO...thjat being said...those that voted AGAINST the war would have most certainly said "I saw the intel and it does not say what Bush claims it said....but they didnt.

SO you see...I am pretty sure the intel said what they claimed it said...

And I will argue with anyone who says that Bush lied about it.

 

[G.T.]

It's arguing just to argue in saying that I don't feel I "need" to make decisions on things where I don't have access to all of the Data involved.................and feel that way ESPECIALLY when lives are at stake?

I don't *really* feel that way>? I'm just "arguing just to argue," you say?

No, that's really how I feel.

The idiots that come into threads to bicker about war protestors not being loud enough or covered enough because the other party is in power................that's arguing just to argue. That's small shit. THAT'S the shit that makes the country so fucked up politically. Paying mind to tiny tiny partisan bickering and pointing and going HA! SEEE!

That's arguing just to argue.

 

[Jarhead]

It's arguing just to argue in saying that I don't feel I "need" to make decisions on things where I don't have access to all of the Data involved.................and feel that way ESPECIALLY when lives are at stake?

I don't *really* feel that way>? I'm just "arguing just to argue," you say?

No, that's really how I feel.

The idiots that come into threads to bicker about war protestors not being loud enough or covered enough because the other party is in power................that's arguing just to argue. That's small shit. THAT'S the shit that makes the country so fucked up politically. Paying mind to tiny tiny partisan bickering and pointing and going HA! SEEE!

That's arguing just to argue.

Thats another issue all together...

But I am referring to your apparent criticism of how I make decisions.

I do the best I can to make decisions with concrete information

For example...I saw a poll last week and ripped it down to the skeleton to make my decision oin its validity..and pposted my findings and how I canme to them.

Likewise, I also stated why a Fox Poll is worth crap.....so it was not a partisan move on my part.

But when I am not afforded access to data and must make an educted "guess" (better term than edcuated decision)...I am willing to do it and make furtrher decisions BASED on this hypothesis...

And in this case, I applied logic and reasoning.....I know the left and right will do anything to make the other side look bad...so if Bush REALLY lied about the intel...those on the left that did NOT vote for it would have said so.....but they didnt...until, of course, the war proved to be a good political pawn when it started to not go so well.

 

[G.T.]

It's arguing just to argue in saying that I don't feel I "need" to make decisions on things where I don't have access to all of the Data involved.................and feel that way ESPECIALLY when lives are at stake?

I don't *really* feel that way>? I'm just "arguing just to argue," you say?

No, that's really how I feel.

The idiots that come into threads to bicker about war protestors not being loud enough or covered enough because the other party is in power................that's arguing just to argue. That's small shit. THAT'S the shit that makes the country so fucked up politically. Paying mind to tiny tiny partisan bickering and pointing and going HA! SEEE!

That's arguing just to argue.

Thats another issue all together...

But I am referring to your apparent criticism of how I make decisions.

I do the best I can to make decisions with concrete information

For example...I saw a poll last week and ripped it down to the skeleton to make my decision oin its validity..and pposted my findings and how I canme to them.

Likewise, I also stated why a Fox Poll is worth crap.....so it was not a partisan move on my part.

But when I am not afforded access to data and must make an educted "guess" (better term than edcuated decision)...I am willing to do it and make furtrher decisions BASED on this hypothesis...

And in this case, I applied logic and reasoning.....I know the left and right will do anything to make the other side look bad...so if Bush REALLY lied about the intel...those on the left that did NOT vote for it would have said so.....but they didnt...until, of course, the war proved to be a good political pawn when it started to not go so well.

And I disagree with doing so, and only said as much.

 

[Jarhead]

It's arguing just to argue in saying that I don't feel I "need" to make decisions on things where I don't have access to all of the Data involved.................and feel that way ESPECIALLY when lives are at stake?

I don't *really* feel that way>? I'm just "arguing just to argue," you say?

No, that's really how I feel.

The idiots that come into threads to bicker about war protestors not being loud enough or covered enough because the other party is in power................that's arguing just to argue. That's small shit. THAT'S the shit that makes the country so fucked up politically. Paying mind to tiny tiny partisan bickering and pointing and going HA! SEEE!

That's arguing just to argue.

Thats another issue all together...

But I am referring to your apparent criticism of how I make decisions.

I do the best I can to make decisions with concrete information

For example...I saw a poll last week and ripped it down to the skeleton to make my decision oin its validity..and pposted my findings and how I canme to them.

Likewise, I also stated why a Fox Poll is worth crap.....so it was not a partisan move on my part.

But when I am not afforded access to data and must make an educted "guess" (better term than edcuated decision)...I am willing to do it and make furtrher decisions BASED on this hypothesis...

And in this case, I applied logic and reasoning.....I know the left and right will do anything to make the other side look bad...so if Bush REALLY lied about the intel...those on the left that did NOT vote for it would have said so.....but they didnt...until, of course, the war proved to be a good political pawn when it started to not go so well.

And I disagree with doing so, and only said as much.

Wrong.

You made a judgement call on me.

I do not have faith in Washington...at all...I have faith in only one thing....if someone on the left is lying to me, the right will let me know...and visa versa.....

 

[Dr.Drock]

Thats another issue all together...

But I am referring to your apparent criticism of how I make decisions.

I do the best I can to make decisions with concrete information

For example...I saw a poll last week and ripped it down to the skeleton to make my decision oin its validity..and pposted my findings and how I canme to them.

Likewise, I also stated why a Fox Poll is worth crap.....so it was not a partisan move on my part.

But when I am not afforded access to data and must make an educted "guess" (better term than edcuated decision)...I am willing to do it and make furtrher decisions BASED on this hypothesis...

And in this case, I applied logic and reasoning.....I know the left and right will do anything to make the other side look bad...so if Bush REALLY lied about the intel...those on the left that did NOT vote for it would have said so.....but they didnt...until, of course, the war proved to be a good political pawn when it started to not go so well.

And I disagree with doing so, and only said as much.

Wrong.

You made a judgement call on me.

I do not have faith in Washington...at all...I have faith in only one thing....if someone on the left is lying to me, the right will let me know...and visa versa.....

Isn't believing the intel Washington provides show you have faith in them?

Maybe you did, and don't now, but this sounds like at the time you did.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Obama the war criminal.
Obama the baby killer.

Well said, people need to throw out party affiliation and judge people on what actually happens.

So you are saying Bamma dropped the hammer and threw down on those kids ? You stop to think how the pilot who did the shooting might feel considering he will see it on the news for the next year ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Obama the war criminal.
Obama the baby killer.

Well said, people need to throw out party affiliation and judge people on what actually happens.

So you are saying Bamma dropped the hammer and threw down on those kids ? You stop to think how the pilot who did the shooting might feel considering he will see it on the news for the next year ?

The soldiers thrown into this unjust war take a big part in why I form my opinion as being against this war.

I place zero blame on soldiers or this pilot, the US bureacrats responsible for putting people in these difficult situations where these things happening are inevitable are to blame.

 

[Jarhead]

And I disagree with doing so, and only said as much.

Wrong.

You made a judgement call on me.

I do not have faith in Washington...at all...I have faith in only one thing....if someone on the left is lying to me, the right will let me know...and visa versa.....

Isn't believing the intel Washington provides show you have faith in them?

Maybe you did, and don't now, but this sounds like at the time you did.

No...it didnt.

I am a strong believer in the power of debate.

As I clearly stated....if Bush was lying to the people about the intel, those in congress who were against the war at the time would have expressed that he was lying...seeing as they saw the intel as well. Instead, they simply opposed the war by saying it is not our responsibility and that it was not ethical thato enage in war......but they NEVER said Bush lied about the intel...something they most certainly would have at ahe time if he was.

It was not unitl AFTER the war became unpopular that some on the left that voted for the war started to claim that Bush lied....but to the sane and reasonable, that was quite obviously done for political expediency.

NOw...if all in congress vote YES for something based on info we DONT have access to....say....a raise of doubling their salary since their costs have tripled.....THEN I would have my doubts....

But as long as one person on either party votes against something...and the reason he is against it DOES NOT INCLUDE soemone lying....then I must assume the info they offfer the public is correct

 

[Dr.Drock]

Wrong.

You made a judgement call on me.

I do not have faith in Washington...at all...I have faith in only one thing....if someone on the left is lying to me, the right will let me know...and visa versa.....

Isn't believing the intel Washington provides show you have faith in them?

Maybe you did, and don't now, but this sounds like at the time you did.

No...it didnt.

I am a strong believer in the power of debate.

As I clearly stated....if Bush was lying to the people about the intel, those in congress who were against the war at the time would have expressed that he was lying...seeing as they saw the intel as well. Instead, they simply opposed the war by saying it is not our responsibility and that it was not ethical thato enage in war......but they NEVER said Bush lied about the intel...something they most certainly would have at ahe time if he was.

It was not unitl AFTER the war became unpopular that some on the left that voted for the war started to claim that Bush lied....but to the sane and reasonable, that was quite obviously done for political expediency.

NOw...if all in congress vote YES for something based on info we DONT have access to....say....a raise of doubling their salary since their costs have tripled.....THEN I would have my doubts....

But as long as one person on either party votes against something...and the reason he is against it DOES NOT INCLUDE soemone lying....then I must assume the info they offfer the public is correct

I agree, I don't think Bush or anyone else in favor of the war was lying.

The reasons they gave for war was why I was against it, so I was believing the words too. I was 18 at the time, so now I know from this time forward to not take anything Washington says seriously including their intel. Someone lied about the WMD's, but I don't think it was Bush.

Now I assume everything they say is a lie or an exaggeration (or an under-exaggeration when they talk about a budget or how much something will cost as it's always higher) and can't really think of an instance that that assumption has been wrong.

 

[Jarhead]

Isn't believing the intel Washington provides show you have faith in them?

Maybe you did, and don't now, but this sounds like at the time you did.

No...it didnt.

I am a strong believer in the power of debate.

As I clearly stated....if Bush was lying to the people about the intel, those in congress who were against the war at the time would have expressed that he was lying...seeing as they saw the intel as well. Instead, they simply opposed the war by saying it is not our responsibility and that it was not ethical thato enage in war......but they NEVER said Bush lied about the intel...something they most certainly would have at ahe time if he was.

It was not unitl AFTER the war became unpopular that some on the left that voted for the war started to claim that Bush lied....but to the sane and reasonable, that was quite obviously done for political expediency.

NOw...if all in congress vote YES for something based on info we DONT have access to....say....a raise of doubling their salary since their costs have tripled.....THEN I would have my doubts....

But as long as one person on either party votes against something...and the reason he is against it DOES NOT INCLUDE soemone lying....then I must assume the info they offfer the public is correct

I agree, I don't think Bush or anyone else in favor of the war was lying.

The reasons they gave for war was why I was against it, so I was believing the words too. I was 18 at the time, so now I know from this time forward to not take anything Washington says seriously including their intel. Someone lied about the WMD's, but I don't think it was Bush.

Now I assume everything they say is a lie or an exaggeration (or an under-exaggeration when they talk about a budget or how much something will cost as it's always higher) and can't really think of an instance that that assumption has been wrong.

See...I dont believe someone lied about the intel.

I believe Hussein actually made it look like he had WMD's so he can call Bush's bluff.

If you recall, he acted very suspiciously....went against the treaty he signed. Let inspectoprs see some but refused to let them go behind the locked door.

Now...why did he want to call Bush's bluff? Becuase it would give his something to brag about...He was a dictator who was embarrassed by the US 10 years earlier....he was not a very logical man....bordering on irrational in MANY of his actions....

I believe he never expected Bush to really attack...

So I believe our intel was incorrect....but there was good reason for the intel.