andrewstewart

Not in the slightest. I did very similar.

You don't know what he was told by the intelligence community. You only know what he chose to tell Congress and the American people. The congressmen and senators that supported the war only got to hear what they were allowed to hear. And what he and his cronies told us appears to be a massive lie. You don't know either Kallend. The difference is I'm not jumping up and down screaming "he told the truth" I said I wanted to wait until the report came out. I also want an investigation into what he knew and if it turns that he "lied" then I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may. Isn't making a judgement without waiting until you have the all the evidence exactly what you are accusing GWB of doing? How long do we have to wait until you're satisfied? Until the end of time? The UN inspectors found nothing, and were effectlively ejected by GWB for being too slow. The US troops found nothing, Kay quit saying he didn't think there's anything, and even Powell now says there probably wasn't anything. He wants to wait for the official "report". And what a thrilling read that will nodoubt be. Totally impartial too, I'd expect.

Everything comes from a source. Academic research - such as the paper you are criticising - cites it's sources so as to make a scientific case. You've failed to make a similar case to prove your point, or to provide alternative research that cites sources in an equally comprehensive manner. Why is that? Perhaps you are just too busy.

Excuses excuses. You simply can't prove it. Your comment doesn't even merit a response aside from this sentence. You made a statement that you now refuse to justify because you are "too busy" (although obviously not to busy to continue to post to the forum). I'll say it again: you can't prove it because you're wrong.

He's stayed on topic - you haven't. He's contributed to the debate - you haven't. He's not the one making an ass out of himself.

Excuses excuses. You simply can't prove it.

So that's a no then. You said it - you justify it.

So, in essence you think USA deserved 911 ... thanks! If I walk up to you and punch you in the face, there would have to be a reason for it, right? Someone usually doesn't want to hurt you unless they feel strongly enough to want to hurt you for some reason - usually a perceived injustice against them. 911 wasn't a random act of violence, and yet I really see very little thinking going on about WHY those people would want to do what they did (which included their own death). Using trite sound bytes like "because they hate freedom" does no justice to such a complex issue. Can you not conceive of the fact that it is your attitude of "us versus them" that in fact contributes to the perception that the US is a bully who acts unilaterally for ultimately selfish ends? What Faber is saying is that it is exactly that mindset that makes other countries hate us. You're part of the problem.

Got a link to justify that?

Oh yeah, totally. Thank god they stopped Saddam's planned invasion of the US.

But you are a skydiver - are you not? So you understand about risk managment. There is a difference between the relative level of risk associated with an activity and the perception of the level of risk. How can you personally worry about terrorism as a direct threat to you as an individual, and yet choose to go skydiving? Which do you think is most likely to kill you? Similarly: what is more likely to kill the average US citizen - a car crash or terrorism? So should people worry more about car crashes or terrorism?

You stopped packing your reserve halfway through, came on here, and now you're going back to finish packing it? Oh dear.

Well I think this guy just *might* know a little bit more about it than me or you, so I'll defer to his statements in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3425429.stm

The buck stops with him though, doesn't it? I mean... he IS the president, right? He is ultimately responsible. So why doesn't he come right out and say that he was given wrong information and that he accepts now that what he said was wrong? Would it kill him to do that? Instead, we get him squirming around the issue and using phrases like "weapons of mass distruction-related activities". It's kind of pathetic.

Easily. Because the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq, without UN support, has done immense harm to the US. If you want to protect yourself, don't act in a way that ostracises you and will likely send people flooding towards causes that are adversarial towards you. The US will reap the ill effects of it's recent decisions for decades from now.

You've regressed to the point of banal politi-speak. But to critique your statement - the issue is one of wether a "threat" is real or not (c.f. WMD). The issue is also one of wether or not that "threat" justifies preemptive war. To say that the US will defend itself from "all" threats is a carte blance statement that will get us into a ton of shit. Oh wait, it already did.

But don't you think it's kind of like a situation where you want to do something, but all your friends can see that it's a mistake - and they tell you that it's a mistake. And then when you do go and do it you find out that they were right, but instead of admitting they were right you get angry with them as a sort of emotional defense mechanism?

It's a bad time in history to become a terrorist. That's the kind of macho, chest-beating bravado that got us into this mess in iraq. "Bring 'em on"... right?

Thinly veiled personal attack. No response needed. Oh but I would very much like you to respond. I really want to know how you can say "I don't see the rest of the world doing anything to impress us" and actually mean it. Are you seriously saying that the entire world, bar the US, is basically useless and should have it's opinion discounted because they aren't doing anything to "impress us"? I really want to hear you extrapolate and explain your statement. Don't change the meaning of what I said. Okay, I'll quote you directly and then you can explain it. You said: "I don't see the rest of the world doing anything to impress us". Now please explain. I really am curious to know what you meant.

Thinly veiled personal attack. No response needed. Oh but I would very much like you to respond. I really want to know how you can say "I don't see the rest of the world doing anything to impress us" and actually mean it. Are you seriously saying that the entire world, bar the US, is basically useless and should have it's opinion discounted because they aren't doing anything to "impress us"? I really want to hear you extrapolate and explain your statement.

Where are you getting this from? I really would like to know.

Wow, I bet that attitude has really carried you to huge success in your life. Collaboration sucks ass!

What, like... the fact that they can't be found? By your logic, since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, then they must exist. Your logic is faulty.

Yeah, I bet that before the invasion of Iraq you just couldn't get to sleep at night because you were so worried about your imminent annihilation.

If Bush actually believed that SH had the weapons, it isn't fraudulent. A mistake for sure, but not fraudulent. Has it been proven that he didn't have them? A rather big mistake, wouldn't you say? Considering the number of American soldiers killed and injured to date. Has it been proven that SH didn't have WMD? Not completely, but pretty much. The head of the team responsible for finding the WMD in Iraq just recently quit, citing the reason that he doesn't think there are any WMD to be found.