Roundup of "Bush was right" admissions

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Hahaha

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

". . .this was about WMD's . . about freedom for Iraqis . . . terrorism . . . freedom for the oppressed . . . oil . . . "

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

...yep ans...all of the above. But that's not the "spin" many would choose to put on...those who enjoy being angry and need some excuse to feel justified in doing so publically.

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

And if our leaders would have been forthcoming with their goals and intentions and the American people overwhelmingly suppported such action based on the truth, I wouldn't be angry. I'm angry because the American people were given half-truths, mistatements and outright lies as justification for a war. That makes Bush absolutely, without a doubt wrong in his actions. And there is no way to 'spin' it now to make those actions right (I don't care who's doing the spinning).

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

"That makes Bush absolutely, without a doubt wrong in his actions."

LOL...come on now! I think that putting a stop to Saddam is a RIGHT action...not a wrong one. Are you trying to say it was wrong to do this?

Whether Bush accurately stated all of the motives for invading Iraq or not is one thing...the invasion itself is something else entirely. There is a difference between a person's (or country's) motives, and the actions themselves. This difference seems to be one of the most difficult concepts for many people to understand/accept in this day and age.

No spin can change what happened...the spin we're referring to is on the motives only. Actions can be judged for merit seperately from motives. The invasion of Iraq was an action, not a motive.

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

Again, DT, using that logic, if I feed homeless children by robbing banks, then my actions are 'right'.

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Bad analogy, NRK. No "bank was robbed" for Iraq to be invaded. Stating motives, and the fact of the invasion itself, are independent of each other.

Now I know what you're thinking...Bush had to sell the public on the idea before the invasion could happen. I disagree...though I believe politically it was in his best interests to do so.

So, without it being necessary to "rob the bank", the two actions are independent of each other.

I also believe that the invasion of Iraq was in the best interests of the public...so in reality, the "bank" was payed as well as the "children being fed".

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
Stating motives, and the fact of the invasion itself, are independent of each other

Only if there never going to be accountability for actions taken because of whatever motives stated, ever.

The only servitute to justify the invasion (according to law) didn't, although it was promised to be there in stockpiles (as in a clear and present danger), exist. The end.

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

"Bush had to sell the public on the idea before the invasion"

Not necessarily. Saddam had already sold the idea to a heaping portion of public by repeatedly violating those sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions. That started way back in 1991. Lots of public were tired of him and figured good riddance to bad rubbish.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

We were talking right vs wrong...not legal vs illegal, Galmin. And you came into the middle of the convo while we were discussing NRKs analogy. The two are independent because nobody is being "robbed" in order for the "children to be fed"...

...as far as acountability is concerned, I have no problem with that. Hold the US accountable for all the good it has done this world in a short 200+ years. Go ahead!

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

DT, maybe my analogy is poor. Fine.

So I'll just ask a simple question. Is lying 'good' if the outcome of the lies is 'good'?

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

The answer to your question, NRK, is "no"...but my point is that the invasion was not an outcome of any lies...

Personally, I don't think Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, though there are those who believe he did. But whether you believe he lied or not has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq...there is no "outcome". THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER!!!

So, the invasion and Bush can each be judged seperately based on their own merits. I think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing based on its own merits.

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

I see where you're coming from! Now I see why we disagree, I don't believe that invading Iraq was a good idea regardless of the outcome. There were other ways to meet the same goals without such loss of life and the destruction of so much of Iraq. So that's why we disagree. It's not that I think Bush is wrong because he lied, it's that I think Bush is wrong because we didn't have to invade Iraq and that it was a terrible idea, again, regardless of the results.

My music for the disenchanted masses

russky natasha · Joined: 28 Feb 2005 Posts: 19

"...as far as acountability is concerned, I have no problem with that. Hold the US accountable for all the good it has done this world in a short 200+ years."

:aua

I've only got two words to say to that.

Native Americans.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

I could say "Afghanistan"...but what would be the point. You can choose to look at only wrong-doings if you like, nastya...but that says more about you than it says about America I'm afraid.