• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

USA-1 said:
Bush told us that Saddam absolutely had stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam didn't. Therefore Bush was wrong. What he told us was not true. Correct? He told us a lie.
Click to expand...

the semantic issue that has been posed was regarding bush's intent
is there a smoking gun email or other document which evidences his intent to lie about WMD's (and the association with al qaeda)
while there is no smoking gun, there is an opportunity to examine the veracity of what the administration expressed
when we see how they would lie to us about Pat Tillman, or how they would disclose a covert CIA agent for partisan political purposes, it appears to be a very tiny leap to also conclude that dicknbush also lied to us about WMDs and the supposed al qaeda connection, in a neocon hatched scheme to take out saddam
 
justabubba said:
the semantic issue that has been posed was regarding bush's intent
is there a smoking gun email or other document which evidences his intent to lie about WMD's (and the association with al qaeda)
while there is no smoking gun, there is an opportunity to examine the veracity of what the administration expressed
when we see how they would lie to us about Pat Tillman, or how they would disclose a covert CIA agent for partisan political purposes, it appears to be a very tiny leap to also conclude that dicknbush also lied to us about WMDs and the supposed al qaeda connection, in a neocon hatched scheme to take out saddam
Click to expand...

To do so requires critical thinking skills. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
genocide had not accured for some years. If we ahd intervened when that was going on, that might have been reason, a just reason to invade. As it was not going on, and had not been going on for years, that arguement doesn't really hold up. Instead, as I have said, we added injury to injury.

And while I agree sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people, those could have been adjusted without oil for food or invasion. Problems can be spotted and adjusted for. Saddam was very isolated and not likely to pose much threat no what we did.

Also, people in NK are suffering now. Should we invade?
Click to expand...

When people rely on what government tells them, they can never know the truth. The people running Iraq now are just as corrupt as Saddam, there are just more of them.
 
USA-1 said:
Bush told us that Saddam absolutely had stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam didn't. Therefore Bush was wrong. What he told us was not true. Correct? He told us a lie.
Click to expand...
You havent been paying attention.
There is a clear difference between being wrong and lying.
To prove that GWB lied, you have to prove that he knew what he said was wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
USA-1 said:
You might want to look up the definition of war.
Click to expand...
A war is a series of acts of war perprtrated by one party against another.
A state dropping bombs and lobbing missiles onto another state is unquestionably an act of war; a series of these events (such as in December 1998) is, by definition, a war.
:shrug:
 
Goobieman said:
A war is a series of acts of war perprtrated by one party against another.
A state dropping bombs and lobbing missiles onto another state is unquestionably an act of war; a series of these events (such as in December 1998) is, by definition, a war.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

An act of war is not war.
 
USA-1 said:
I did. One side bombing another is not war.
Click to expand...
A state dropping bombs and lobbing missiles onto another state is unquestionably an act of war.
A series of these events (such as in December 1998) is, by definition, a war.
 
Goobieman said:
A state dropping bombs and lobbing missiles onto another state is unquestionably an act of war.
A series of these events (such as in December 1998) is, by definition, a war.
Click to expand...

Only if the other side attacks back. It takes two countries for war. One country bombing another may be an act of war but it isn't a war. It takes two particpating in the acts of war to be war. A war is between two or more nations. Unilateral attacks are not "war".
 
Goobieman said:
You havent been paying attention.
There is a clear difference between being wrong and lying.
To prove that GWB lied, you have to prove that he knew what he said was wrong.
Click to expand...

As the intel didn't say that, his saying it is more than just being wrong. It's lying.
 
USA-1 said:
Only if the other side attacks back.
Click to expand...
Not at all. An act of war is an act of war, regardless of response.
A series of acts of war constitutes a state of war, regardless of response.
By your defintion, there is currently no war in Afghanistan because the Taliban isn't attacking the US.
 
Boo Radley said:
As the intel didn't say that, his saying it is more than just being wrong. It's lying.
Click to expand...
To prove that GWB lied, you have to prove that he knew what he said was wrong.
You -know- you cannot do that - and yet you persist.
Partisan bigotry a its finest.
 
act of war  –noun
an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

Act of war | Define Act of war at Dictionary.com

war1    /wɔr/ Show Spelled
[wawr] Show IPA
noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
–noun
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.

War | Define War at Dictionary.com
 
Goobieman said:
Not at all. An act of war is an act of war, regardless of response.
A series of acts of war constitutes a state of war, regardless of response.
By your defintion, there is currently no war in Afghanistan because the Taliban isn't attacking the US.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between act of war and war. The Taliban hasn't attacked the US? You might want to do some research on that one.
War did take place in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are in the later stages right now.
 
Goobieman said:
To prove that GWB lied, you have to prove that he knew what he said was wrong.
You -know- you cannot do that - and yet you persist.
Partisan bigotry a its finest.
Click to expand...

Not neccessarily. If he didn't know for sure and stated it as fact he was lying. He did not know for sure. No one could have, so he lied. It's not partisan at all. It's an historical fact.
 
USA-1 said:
Not neccessarily. If he didn't know for sure and stated it as fact he was lying.
Click to expand...
This is a faulty definnition of a lie - it means that every time you guess, you lie.
Keep grasping at those straws.
 
Goobieman said:
This is a faulty definnition of a lie - it means that every time you guess, you lie.
Keep grasping at those straws.
Click to expand...

If you guess and tell everyone it is a fact, you are lying. Bush didn't state he thought Saddam had WMDs, he said Saddam did have WMDs when he could not have known for sure. Bush lied.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
He went in with the hope of finding WMDs. He cherry picked all the intel and ignored any that contradicted his theory that Saddam still had WMDs. Yeah he was lying.
Click to expand...

Someone lied, but not Bush. He could only react to situations his intelligence told him. However he did over-exaggerate half truths and mobilized a huge army in Kuwait months before the actual invasion, a clear indication that he was already convinced WMDs were there.

My choice for the liar, who had to know he was lying, is... (drum roll) General Colin Powell. The phony sketches (not photos) of portable gas containers he showed at the UN that got media coverage (including video tapes) all over the world, could have been the real clincher.

Second choice is the mushroom cloud threat, both Bush and Rice exploited.

ricksfolly
 
USA-1 said:
If you guess and tell everyone it is a fact, you are lying.
Click to expand...
No, its not. Guessing is different than knowing what you are saying is wrong.
 
Goobieman said:
To prove that GWB lied, you have to prove that he knew what he said was wrong.
You -know- you cannot do that - and yet you persist.
Partisan bigotry a its finest.
Click to expand...

Again, if you say something that is not supported by the intel you have, that is lying. Saying your guess is fact is lying.
 
Goobieman said:
No, its not. Guessing is different than knowing what you are saying is wrong.
Click to expand...

That's some far mental gymnastics you're doing there. I can just make up **** up, call it guessing and treat it like fact and you won't have a problem with that?

Bull****! :coffeepap
 
ricksfolly said:
Someone lied, but not Bush. He could only react to situations his intelligence told him. However he did over-exaggerate half truths and mobilized a huge army in Kuwait months before the actual invasion, a clear indication that he was already convinced WMDs were there.

My choice for the liar, who had to know he was lying, is... (drum roll) General Colin Powell. The phony sketches (not photos) of portable gas containers he showed at the UN that got media coverage (including video tapes) all over the world, could have been the real clincher.

Second choice is the mushroom cloud threat, both Bush and Rice exploited.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

That's not what Bush did. He did not get intel that supported his claims.

And yes, Powell recognized the problem and tried to get confirmation by all reports.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's some far mental gymnastics you're doing there. I can just make up **** up, call it guessing and treat it like fact and you won't have a problem with that?

Bull****! :coffeepap
Click to expand...
Yawn.

Me: "Hey -- is Steve across the street?"
You: Having seen Steve just walk across the street "Yep"
Me: "You sure"
You: "yep"
Me: "Great!"
I walk across the street. Steve is not there, having just gotten into his girlfriends car. I walk back to talk to you
Me: "Steve isn't there -- why did you lie to me?"
You: "......... (add words here)
 
Goobieman said:
Yawn.

Me: "Hey -- is Steve across the street?"
You: Having seen Steve just walk across the street "Yep"
Me: "You sure"
You: "yep"
Me: "Great!"
I walk across the street. Steve is not there, having just gotten into his girlfriends car. I walk back to talk to you
Me: "Steve isn't there -- why did you lie to me?"
You: "......... (add words here)
Click to expand...

That nonsense is nothing like what happened.

He's what happened:

You: does steve have a gun?

Me: he had some guns once. Most were taken away, but he likey still has an old musket and maybe a sling shot or two.

You: Bob says he has an M16.

Me: Bob isn't trustworthy and has no way of knowing (exact CIA view of al Libi).

You tell everyone: Steve has stockpiles on M16's and could have a Tank by Friday. And say I said it was so.


That's lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom