POLL: IRAQI'S prefer dictatorship! Re--enslave them now!

[Dante]

I am amoral. I'm arguing (I've lost count of how many times I've had to say this...) with logic, not morals. If everyone lied then we'd never trust each other.

Of course on the flip side of this coin lying can indeed sometimes be necessary, I'm prepared to admit that. But constantly?

[emprworm]

I am amoral. I'm arguing (I've lost count of how many times I've had to say this...) with logic, not morals. If everyone lied then we'd never trust each other.

Of course on the flip side of this coin lying can indeed sometimes be necessary, I'm prepared to admit that. But constantly?

what lie was said? 

Prove to me that GWB LIED when he said he believed Iraq had WMD's.  How was this a lie?  A lie is when you KNOW something is false.

Why do you say someone lies, when you do not know?

ANSWER:  Anti-bush bias clouds your reasoning

[Dante]

better??

[Dante]

what lie was said?

[GUNWOUNDS]

[Dante]

You think you're telling the truth. Lies aren't everywhere.

[emprworm]

Or perhaps there is no proof of the weapons. Hmm?

we have proof that we once sold him weapons, and that he used them.  so now GWB sincerely believes he still has them.  What LOGICAL reason do you have to call him a liar?

you call him a liar for MORAL reasons, making your entire 'amoral' claim a bunch of nonsense.  you use your 'amoral' position as a cloak to hide behind everytime you hurl an anti-bush emotionally charged post.  Morally based, of course.

[Dante]

Give me my moral arguments back to me and the moral statements I use to back them up. You're attacking me personally now and not my opinions so I hope you can provide something to back yourself up.

Well, actually I don't.  ;D 

[GUNWOUNDS]

You think you're telling the truth. Lies aren't everywhere.

you dont know that i could be decieving you.

[Dante]

In which case I beleive I'm telling the truth. I was rather hoping you would accept the percieved truth of your own statements but still...

[GUNWOUNDS]

In which case I beleive I'm telling the truth. I was rather hoping you would accept the percieved truth of your own statements but still...

but you only BELIEVE your telling the truth.. you could be lying to me unknowingly...

[emprworm]

Give me my moral arguments back to me and the moral statements I use to back them up. You're attacking me personally now and not my opinions so I hope you can provide something to back yourself up.

Well, actually I don't.

[Dante]

It's not a moral argument. It would be if I said "Bush lying is wrong because it is morally wrong to lie." But I didn't. I just said he lied. An empirical fact, not a moral statement.

And until the WMD are found in Iraq, and if they appear to be genuine, I will continue to believe that.

[emprworm]

It's not a moral argument. It would be if I said "Bush lying is wrong because it is morally wrong to lie." But I didn't. I just said he lied. An empirical fact, not a moral statement.

And until the WMD are found in Iraq, and if they appear to be genuine, I will continue to believe that.

do you even know what a lie is Dustscout?  maybe you have a literacy problem?

prove to me he lied.  Since its an empirical fact, you obviously have well documented proof.

[Dante]

1) GWB claims that WMD are in Iraq and can be used against us very quickly.

2) No WMD found in Iraq to this date, nor any ability to manufacture or launch them.

Conclusion: GWB lied, he can provide no proof.

[GUNWOUNDS]

1) GWB claims that WMD are in Iraq and can be used against us very quickly.

2) No WMD found in Iraq to this date, nor any ability to manufacture or launch them.

Conclusion: GWB lied, he can provide no proof.

GWB made all of those claims PRE-WAR ...

You cannot call him a liar POST-WAR

since those weapons could have been destroyed, sold, or hidden....

when GWB made that remark... he was referring to that very moment...

the only way to prove GWB was a liar would be to sneak in a covert team (PRE-WAR) to check facilities without Iraqis suspecting anything so they wouldnt try to hide anything....

since that is impossible you can never prove him wrong....

If you sold your car to me.... and then i drove home with it... and then you you claimed that i had it ... you would be correct.... but if by the time you got back to my house... i buried it in my backyard.... and you couldnt find it.. does that mean that your previous statement of me having your car was a lie ??

of course not... you didnt lie .. and neither was bush lying.

[Dante]

So now that they are gone, if they were ever there, how can you justify using them as an excuse for war?

And how can we be expected to believe something, true or not, with no evidence?

[GUNWOUNDS]

So now that they are gone, if they were ever there, how can you justify using them as an excuse for war?

And how can we be expected to believe something, true or not, with no evidence?

we know we sold an immense amount of WMD's to him.. just like you knew you sold your car to me...

its logical deduction my dear watson....

[emprworm]

we know we sold an immense amount of WMD's to him.. just like you knew you sold your car to me...

its logical deduction my dear watson....

you cant reason with Dustscout, because he has no ability to reason. 

Dustscout, your 'criteria' for lying is on par with the absurd.

If someone acts on genuine belief, how can you call that a lie? 

absolutely rediculous.  You make yourself into an utter hypocrite.  Have you ever believed something that turned out later to be wrong?  Did that make you a LIAR?

please.  this is getting obsenely irrational to the point of childish absurdity.

[nemafakei]

Much as I'd like to contribute to this roaring debate, I don't tend to keep much petrol to hand.

[Dragoon Knight]

I think for this debate to remain flame-less, that we need to calm down a bit.  I'm going to try and sum up my argument in one post, so don't jump down my throat if I miss anything out.

First of all, I am not a Bush Hater.  As I have said before, I find the guy a great source of entertainment (UK posters will know what I mean when I say 2D-TV has a lot to thank Bush for ;D).  Therefore, my judgement cannot be "clouded", nor can I be "blinded by my Bush-hatred".  With that firmly stated, let's continue.

In the lead up to the war, I have no doubt that Bush acted properly and justly.  He took the time to give Saddam the chance to declare and relinquish any WMDs... which he didn't.  The weapons inspectors sent in by the U.N. (and the U.S. I think?  Sorry if I'm wrong on that one) weren't finding anything, but Saddam certainly didn't have enough time to hide the vast amounts of WMDs that Bush thought he had.  It is what happened NEXT that I find wrong (in a purely legal way).

While Bush may have had grounds to believe that WMD did exist in Iraq, he still defied the UN when he went to war.  His judgement was not in line with the UN, and therefore most of the rest of the civilised world.  Only very few believed that the war could be justified on little to no proof.  The UN forbade him take military action, but he did so anyway.  In democratic terms, this was against a kind of "world majority".  The U.S. willingly became part of the UN, and as such they should adhere to their rules as much as anyone else.  Going to war was illegal because of this.

I am not saying that the war did not have favourable results, and I am definitely not condoning the actions of Saddam Hussein (who, in my opinion, is a sick bastard).  But neither am I condoning the actions of the Coalition.  There were other ways of removing Saddam, and the Coalition's decision was far too rash.  I say; so what if Saddam sold the weapons?  That would mean that Iraq was no longer such a threat... still an illegal war.  Or if he has hidden them, we still can't find them.

What I am trying to say is, no matter what his intentions and the outcome, Bush's and the Coalition's judgement and decisions were misinformed and far too hasty.  They broke UN laws, and went against the "democratic majority", if you will, of the civilised world.  Thousands died... needlessly, in my opinion.  If Bush had waited, and not spread so much pedagogical propaganda, then we could be looking at the same situation we face now...

Saddam is captured, Iraq is healing and happy, there is no proof of WMDs... but there might not have been so many deaths.  You have to agree that less death is a better thing... if you do not accept that the saving of lives is a good thing, Emprworm, then I will not class you as human.

[emprworm]

you use the UN as your standard for 'breaking laws?'

#1.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You have to agree that less death is a better thing... if you do not accept that the saving of lives is a good thing, Emprworm, then I will not class you as human.

Ok... fair enuf... seems your only concerned with the ratio of lives saved.

Sooooo .... if someone could statistically show you that removing saddam from power actually has saved more lives than if we had allowed him to stay in power... would you then concede your arguement?

For example....

If someone could set an equation

with variables

[VigilVirus]

UN establishes the international law. If it doesn't, what else will? Do you really want another World War? Cause I'm pretty sure without UN as the organization that prevents conflicts and establishes guidelines we would have had one by now.

US is NOT a substitute for UN. US does NOT have the authority to decide what other countries have to do and the military action they need to take. Decisions made outside of UN that lead to military actions are in fact aggressive actions against a country and a war crime. I'd say in the extreme view of things, you could say that Bush is a war criminal.

[GUNWOUNDS]

UN establishes the international law. If it doesn't, what else will? Do you really want another World War? Cause I'm pretty sure without UN as the organization that prevents conflicts and establishes guidelines we would have had one by now.

US is NOT a substitute for UN. US does NOT have the authority to decide what other countries have to do and the military action they need to take. Decisions made outside of UN that lead to military actions are in fact aggressive actions against a country and a war crime. I'd say in the extreme view of things, you could say that Bush is a war criminal.

PUH-LEASE