Yowch. You realise people are going to be bringing this statement up for years, no matter whether you are convincing in this particular thread?
I don’t care. I’m right. If an Arab state has the bomb (which is every country’s right) then maybe the US won’t be so eager to “spread democracy” around the world. The rest of the world needs a way to keep the US in check. The Bomb stops wars.
Even in the hands of radical Islamist nutbars and a guy who enslaves his people while thinking he’s a movie director? You want THEM to have the bomb?
That isn’t morality - it’s suicide. When people call you “The Great Satan”, and mutter that once they have the bomb they’re going to wipe Israel off the map, you might want to think about preventing them from getting the Bomb.
It doesn’t matter if you’re right or not, from now on you’re the guy who wants to give the bomb to Iran. That is separate from my opinion on the matter.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea. The more nukes around, the greater chance of an accidental launch or of terrorists getting their hands on one, even if you believe MAD will keep any nation-state from launching a nuclear war.
Hell, Iran wouldn’t even have to use the thing - it’d be bad enough just as a threat. They could tell Iraq to give up the Shatt al-Arab and a nice slice of oil-rich land and Iraq couldn’t do shit.
You want to see what the world would be like if everyone had nukes? Go have a look at the anarchy thread in GD.
During the cold war, when only the U.S. and the Soviet Union had both atomic weapons and the ability to deliver them, it was believed unlikely that the U.S.S.R. would attack first, because after all they loved their grandchildren too.
The type of mentality found among Muslim fanatics and others in the Middle East is one that would welcome the deaths of family members if their deaths would result in the deaths of the hated “infidels.” We’ve all seen the videos of Palestinian mothers proudly posing with their armed sons the day before their sons kill themselves attacking Israelis. We’ve seen them die by the thousands flocking to Afghanistan and Iraq in order to fight (and die) in what they believe is the cause of Islam. I would not expect any qualms whatsoever on the part of any Muslim fanatics about using atomic weapons to kill their enemies. If they or their families die in the process, so much the better.
Sooner or later, we have to realize that the rights and attitudes we adopt for ourselves do not necessarily extend to every other country. It’s all well and good to say every country has the right to atomic weapons, but it’s just downright foolish to sit by and let your sworn enemies – enemies who’ve said their primary goal is your extermination from the face of the planet – develop atomic weapons just because it’s their right and it isn’t fair to try to stop them.
Sooner or later the law of the jungle is the one that prevails, and those who put fair play above all else will perish while their enemies, who have no such qualms, laugh at their foolishness as they wipe them out.
How blessed are we, to have hard-headed and realistic men amongst us, to keep us foolish and fuzzy-thinking pollyannas in check.
Indeed you are!
Sig request.
Countries have rights? Don’t let Bush know. He’ll add it to his arsenal. “America has a right to impose its system of government on nations she has conquered.”
You didn’t give much clue as to why she shouldn’t be able to say Bush was a liar, given the piles and piles of evidence to that effect in the public record. The only inference I was able to draw was that the public record was an insufficient tool for judging whether a public figure was lying or not.
Then you must be sufficiently specific as to what you are saying that the rest of us don’t have to rely on guesswork and indirect inference to sort it out.
Ah, here we come to the nub of it.
Now, I’m gonna toss it back in your lap, rather than trying to infer, since that bothers you. What suffices as evidence to show someone is a liar? We can never definitively know someone’s state of mind; if Bush tells us the sun rose in the west this morning, maybe he believed it at that moment - ergo, not a liar.
Hey, we’re tired of listening to it. Because it implies that Bush received information largely supportive of all that he was saying, and so had every reason at the time to believe it was true. (I guess this theory is that Bush fell in with the wrong crowd, who told him the wrong things.) That is not the case. We know he kept on making claims about Saddam’s weapons programs even after being told there wasn’t good evidence to support the claims, or that there was strong contradictory evidence.
Maybe Bush still believed what he said after being told these things; you can tell me whether that makes him a liar, or a self-deluding fool.
Not to mention that his Iraq pre-war claims are only one of many areas in which Bush has lied. He’s lied about his tax cuts, about his prescription drug benefit, about John Kerry’s votes in the Senate, about ‘representative local governments’ in occupied Iraq…and that’s just what I can remember well enough, off the top of my head. to attribute to him personally, rather than to members of his administration speaking on his behalf.
It is the latter. But the Bush Administration would be more ridiculous if it were less dangerous.
Addendum to my previous post:
I forgot to raise the issue of Bush & Co. receiving intelligence in support of their war-justifying claims because that’s what they repeatedly demanded. Neither Bush nor his top advisors were passive participants, meekly accepting and believing what the CIA and other intelligence agencies told them. Any suggestion that that was the case (i.e. that litany you’re so tired of repeating) is a distortion of the record.
Again, there’s the question of whether presenting evidence as authoritative that you’ve received because you’ve demanded it is a lie, or is ‘merely’ self-delusion. And again, I’ll let you tell me which it is. I think the leader who is capable of deluding himself is even more dangerous than the leader who lies to the public, but knows he’s doing it. At least the latter is acting rationally, though perversely so. The former has lost his moorings altogether.
Speaking of litanies often repeated, where is the record that you say is being distorted? Did Salon quote an unnamed source as saying that Bush coerced the CIA or something?
[quote]
I forgot to raise the issue of Bush & Co. receiving intelligence in support of their war-justifying claims because that’s what they repeatedly demanded. Neither Bush nor his top advisors were passive participants, meekly accepting and believing what the CIA and other intelligence agencies told them. Any suggestion that that was the case (i.e. that litany you’re so tired of repeating) is a distortion of the record.
[quote]
The 9/11 commission makes it clear that no one felt the slightest bit of pressure from the White House to sex up the weapons claims. None. Sure, the White House repeatedly asked for more data. That’s what they are supposed to do. It’s a serious issue, so you press your intelligence agencies to give you as much as they can. But there was no apparent attempt to pressure them into cooking the books.
And in fact, in Woodward’s book there is a scene in which George Bush is skeptical of CIA intelligence, saying ,“This is the best you can do for evidence? I’m not going to the American people with this.” George Tenet then stands up and says, “Mr. President, it’s a slam dunk. There is no question.” So rather than the war-happy president pressuring a reluctant CIA, it almost sounds the opposite, doesn’t it? The President was skeptical, and his CIA chief was pushing hard for their assessment that Saddam did have WMD.
As for Bush’s certainty with the public, well, that’s what leaders are supposed to do. Having decided that Saddam was in fact a serious threat, he made the case to the American people and the world. Just like when the government after much debate decides on a certain trade policy. The president doesn’t come out and make speeches offering both sides of the debate, saying, “Well, on the one hand there may be these negative effects, but on the other we have this…” The decision is made behind closed doors, then the President comes out as an advocate for the position and sells it to the people. It’s always been that way.
The real question is whether or not the decision was reasonable given the facts. We’re clearly going to disagree on that.
So you’re against the non-proliferation treaty?
I thought your “The terrorists aren’t planning shit. This is all just a scam to try to depress Kerry’s convention bounce” line was the stupidest thing I’d read in a while but this is far past shithouse-rat-crazy. For someone who rails against religious zealots in this country, I can’t fucking fathom why you think the Iranian fundies should have nukes.
I recommend reading the thread, seeing who I was replying to, and reading what they said.
Only if you read only the majority conclusion, as in Republican party line. Hell, let’s go right to Conservative News Service:
Oh, wait, you thought the committee was done? The report to date is only about the intelligence itself. Phase Two, grudgingly agreed to be postponed until after the election, is about the Administration’s use of intelligence, and how it interacted with the agencies. The committee hasn’t concluded diddly-squat about that, and hasn’t even started. In short, you’re either a fucking liar or a fucking fool, or both, as usual.
No. Not in a democracy. A leader’s job is to tell the truth so he can get the people to genuinely support the effort, not merely act on faith, which adult citizens know can be misplaced.
You’re clearly going to have to either explain what facts could possibly remain that could make the decision “reasonable”, or quit trying to defend your support of sending so many of *us * to die. Or let’s just add “fucking coward” to “fucking liar and/or fucking fool”, shall we?
Funny thing is, the leftistas who were gang-banging me in that pathetic thread about the five minutes in the classroom were insisting that the president, instead of sitting around “doing nothing”, should have been on his feet, demanding more information. 
Huh. I don’t get the joke.
I’d say, that as far as the Mideast is concerned, President Bush has shown a great deal of initiative.
Sure, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the case George Bush made involved that lie.
No, not right this time. It’s a seperate question whether it was a reasonable course of action to lie to the world as the President undoubtedly did. You can’t be sure what positions people are going to hold on the the reasonableness of that action.