Roundup of "Bush was right" admissions

[russky natasha]

"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."



And what does your determination to 'see no evil' in your own way of life say about you? That you have the mind of a little child, that's what. You and Test-Kit Ronnie live in Disneyworld. You think myth is reality and reality is myth. And you believe anything your political 'parents' tell you.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

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.

---

This line of thought only holds merit if the invasion of Iraq was a done deal long before the voters heard any reasons and even before congress was delivered information to vote on and anything presented by US politicians to justify the invasion amounted to a hill of beans and smokescreen.

If that's the case, then the reasoning you present is morally corrupt.

Quote:

---

THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER!!!

---

The two are not independent of eachother. Without the campaign of certified bullshit driven and presented by politicians wanting support for the war, there wouldn't have been any invasion.

[DreamTone7]

You just don't get it Galmin...because you don't want to maybe? Maybe not...



...anyway, you can judge the two actions separately from each other. You can judge what Bush did on one hand...and on the other you can judge the invasion itself regardless of what Bush did or didn't do to instigate it. Whether Bush's motives were valid in your eyes or not, you can judge whether or not the invasion was valid or not in your own eyes as well...SEPARATELY!



One is a judgement of Bush's motives...the other a judgement on the validity of the invasion. For example, if you think the invasion was a good idea, but think that Bush lied about his motives, you can say that it was the right thing done for the wrong reasons. It is truly complicated though, when judging Bush...because although everyone cries "oil", there was a lot more (in my opinion) than this pushing the invasion. A LOT more.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

you can judge the two actions separately from each other. You can judge what Bush did on one hand...and on the other you can judge the invasion itself regardless of what Bush did or didn't do to instigate it.

---

Just like you can judge feeding the poor and robbing a bank separately? I think I get it now.

[DreamTone7]

Exactly Galmin...but in this example we cannot say that the bank was robbed and the children fed...we can only say there was an interaction at the bank and the children were fed. It is up to us to decide for ourselves whether the bank was robbed, or if a deposit was made...regardless of the children being fed. But I am glad that we can agree that the children were indeed fed.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

But I am glad that we can agree that the children were indeed fed

---

Don't get so wound up about an analogy.

Edited by: Galmin  at: 3/23/05 9:17