You don't have to dig deep to justify the war in Iraq

[Tony]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251711219&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154


The purported lies of war in Iraq are a source of embarrassment and exhaustive examination. But the truth of it, of war's justification, is being daily unearthed.

Thousands upon thousands of rotting corpses and blanched bones dug up from mass graves throughout the country.

Slaughtered human beings. Men and women and youths. Political prisoners, their hands bound behind their backs, dispatched with a bullet to the head. Others apparently buried alive. Shiite and Sufi and Christian. Suspected dissidents, irritants to the barbaric Saddam Hussein regime, those merely guilty by association or tittle-tattle accusation. Intellectuals. Poets and artists. Clergy.

I doubt any of the so-called "skeptics" will take this into account next time they are whining about WMD.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251711219&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154




I doubt any of the so-called "skeptics" will take this into account next time they are whining about WMD.

To morally justify war, which is a pretty serious business, as I think we all agree, you want to make sure you are correct in what you are saying.

You can't just start the war, then say you didn't really believe one of the points you started it for was valid.

Now, the human rights issue is a quite important one. However, for the US, it opens up a whole can of worms. I believe it was the conservatives who derided Clinton for his involvement in Ethiopia, and stated quite proudly, "we are not in the business of nation building", because that is exactly what appears to be happening right now in Iraq.

The problem for the US is then, why only human rights in Iraq. I can find you plenty of countries with skeletons in the closet, who are monitored by Amnesty International. Burma would be a good one, China, NK, half of Africa. Most of these, however, don't register on the radar. There will be people persecuted and killed, and America will not show the slightest interest.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I believe it was the conservatives who derided Clinton for his involvement in Ethiopia, and stated quite proudly, "we are not in the business of nation building", because that is exactly what appears to be happening right now in Iraq.



That was then, this is now. The conservatives were wrong and they didnt trust clinton to do the job right.


The problem for the US is then, why only human rights in Iraq. I can find you plenty of countries with skeletons in the closet, who are monitored by Amnesty International. Burma would be a good one, China, NK, half of Africa. Most of these, however, don't register on the radar. There will be people persecuted and killed, and America will not show the slightest interest.

So its either all or none?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251711219&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154




I doubt any of the so-called "skeptics" will take this into account next time they are whining about WMD.

Stop your own whining. This was and is as good a rationale as any that can be found for a war. The problem was the GWB did not have the guts to come out and say it and went for a lie instead. That is the problem.

[reprise]

It wasn't OK for Clinton to lie about having sex with Monica Lewinsky but it's OK for Bush to lie about the reasons for military intervention in Iraq?

:confused:

[Tricky]

Regardless what you think of Saddam or any other ruler, do you honestly think a ruler is going to stand idle and let rebels (however well motivated) attack the government? Unless you can prove that these were innocent civilians, or indeed even that they were killed by Saddam rather than the bloody intertribal wars that happen in that region all the time, you are simply retrofitting what you find to fit what you already believe.

If somone were to come across the wreckage of Ruby Ridge, would they conclude that the US goverment was a tyrannical despot?

If indeed those bodies were rebels trying to unseat Saddam, then why didn't they have US support? Maybe there wouldn't be so many of them then.

[Gem]

If I remember correctly, the US encouraged shiite anad kurd uprisings during the first gulf war. Back then, they trusted us, and rebelled.

Now I'm not sure why, but Bush Senior didn't go through, and Saddam just sent his goons to clean up and put the dirt under the rug.

THAT's why not many civilians openly defied Saddam this war, because they weren't sure that you were going in all the way. Once US troops were in Baghdad, then everybody knew the US meant it when they said they would not back down.

As for the graves, there are many mass graves around the world that gets NO attention too. I don't think people say "either all or none," but "why this one and not the other one?"

Gem

[Tony]

Originally posted by reprise
It wasn't OK for Clinton to lie about having sex with Monica Lewinsky but it's OK for Bush to lie about the reasons for military intervention in Iraq?

:confused:


Clinton lied under oath.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Gem
"why this one and not the other one?"




Because there were stustantial economic incentives for going to war with Iraq. Economics has always played a big part in warfare.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

Clinton lied under oath.
Clinton's lie was about a blow job. This lie of Bush's is about the reason for an invasion that killed thousands of people.

You tell me which was more significant.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

If somone were to come across the wreckage of Ruby Ridge, would they conclude that the US goverment was a tyrannical despot?




They could make that conclusion about clinton.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky



You tell me which was more significant.


Bush's(if he indeed, did lie) is more significant, but since clinton lied under oath it was a legal matter.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

Bush's(if he indeed, did lie) is more significant, but since clinton lied under oath it was a legal matter.
You are absolutely right. It was a legal matter. It was so legal he was impeached for it. Yet it is a lie that thousands have told with no legal consequences. In fact, it us usually considered a private matter.

Which is the more immoral lie? I am asking you, not a lawyer.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky



Which is the more immoral lie? I am asking you, not a lawyer.


If I were a moral person, I would say Bush's. But I realize that morality is an illusion so I judge based on the results of said lie. Bush's lie led to the liberation of a country and the removal of a tyrant. Clinton's led to a national scandal that was a waste of everyone's time.

[reprise]

Does anyone truly believe that the US population would have supported US military intervention in Iraq had GWB not sold it as part of "the war on terror"?

And if the US people would not have supported a military action the objective of which was solely to "liberate" the Iraqi people by deposing Saddam Hussein, then isn't it both arrogant and hypocritical to claim the result as some kind of altruistic action which led to a noble victory for humanity?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

If I were a moral person, I would say Bush's. But I realize that morality is an illusion so I judge based on the results of said lie. Bush's lie led to the liberation of a country and the removal of a tyrant. Clinton's led to a national scandal that was a waste of everyone's time.
I strongly disagree with you that morality is an illusion, but this is a subject for another thread.

If the Clinton lie was a waste of time, then why was it not simply ignored as the things people say when they are having an affair? Why was it trumped up until it was "an impeachable offense"? I do not believe that part of it was Clinton's fault. I notice no other politicians were willing to jump up and take an oath that they had never had an affair. Clinton was forced into that position by many of them who never once volunteered to take the same oath themselves. Clinton at least tried (unsuccessfully) to protect the honor of both Lewinski and Hillary. Wold you do otherwise if you were (hypothetically) in the same situation? But this, too, is the subject for another thread.

Bush (apparently) lied about something that caused the deaths of human beings. Perhaps he prevented some, though we don't know that. In any case, his lie is of great importance to the families of those who died. Perhaps there is a good reason for what he did, but if he were an honorable man, he would admit (at least) that he was wrong about what he told the UN.

[Cain]

Ari Fleischer said:

"We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction - that is what this war was about, and is about - and we have high confidence it will be found."

It sucks how Fleischer just resigned after I finally learned how to spell his name.


No one truly think the US had a compassionate motive in this war, right?

Anyway, the fifth panel of this cartoon is relevant:

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW05-21-03.gif

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky



If the Clinton lie was a waste of time, then why was it not simply ignored as the things people say when they are having an affair? Why was it trumped up until it was "an impeachable offense"? I do not believe that part of it was Clinton's fault. I notice no other politicians were willing to jump up and take an oath that they had never had an affair.


I must plead ignorance, I was an apathetic (in terms of politics) high school kid when that fiasco was going on.

Why was clinton on the stand in the first place?

Clinton was forced into that position by many of them who never once volunteered to take the same oath themselves.

How was he forced into that situation?

Clinton at least tried (unsuccessfully) to protect the honor of both Lewinski and Hillary.

Im sure thats what he was thinking when he was ramming his dick down Monica's throat.


Wold you do otherwise if you were (hypothetically) in the same situation?

I wouldnt have cheated in the first place.


Bush (apparently) lied about something that caused the deaths of human beings. Perhaps he prevented some, though we don't know that. In any case, his lie is of great importance to the families of those who died. Perhaps there is a good reason for what he did, but if he were an honorable man, he would admit (at least) that he was wrong about what he told the UN.

We dont know conclusivly that he lied. I prefer to remain a skeptic and wait for the evidence.Tell me what you think of this. (http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-053003D)

[reprise]

There is no way to “minimize” the contribution of the USA in removing saddam. The USA waged a friggin’ war, how could you “minimize” a war. I have said this before: if it weren’t for the intervention of the US, Iraq would have seen saddam followed by his sons until the end of time. But excuse me if I didn’t go out and throw flowers at the incoming missiles.

Thus spake the Iraqi blogger (http://dear_raed.blogspot.com)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


I must plead ignorance, I was an apathetic (in terms of politics) high school kid when that fiasco was going on.

Why was clinton on the stand in the first place?



because they wanted to hurt him politically, and that was the best they could come up with.



Clinton was forced into that position by many of them who never once volunteered to take the same oath themselves.

How was he forced into that situation?



By using trumped charges from the 'indepdenent prosecutor', who was supposed to be on the lookout for more watergates. They put him up there, in front of millions, and asked him if he had had an affair with an intern. Now, I don't think it was ethical of him to do that, and I don't think the president should have such low morals. However, this is not a matter for such methods or purposes.




Clinton at least tried (unsuccessfully) to protect the honor of both Lewinski and Hillary.

Im sure thats what he was thinking when he was ramming his dick down Monica's throat.



No, he was thinking of himself at that point in time, if Monica was mature enough to realise it.



Wold you do otherwise if you were (hypothetically) in the same situation?

I wouldnt have cheated in the first place.


Bush (apparently) lied about something that caused the deaths of human beings. Perhaps he prevented some, though we don't know that. In any case, his lie is of great importance to the families of those who died. Perhaps there is a good reason for what he did, but if he were an honorable man, he would admit (at least) that he was wrong about what he told the UN.

We dont know conclusivly that he lied. I prefer to remain a skeptic and wait for the evidence.Tell me what you think of this. (http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-053003D)

As Tricky points out, no one else took the stand to give that oath, even though politicians, (and Rock Stars), are notorious for sexual pecadillos. Part of it is just the personality type that likes to be worshipped, part of it is the women who are attracted to power. I believe if they were all required to take the oath and tell the truth, at least half of them wouldn't be able to do so. For example, Henry Kissinger stated that "Power is the ultimate Aphrodisiac", and he meant it.

Congressmen regularly turn up with their affairs exposed. I don't recall who it was, but there was the famous conservative who turned up to his wife in hospital to tell her the marriage was over.

Now, I think the fact that Clinton had an affair may have been in the public interest. To then make it a legal affair and impeachable was the height of hypocrisy.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


because they wanted to hurt him politically, and that was the best they could come up with.





That answers nothing.

Why was clinton on the stand? What were the reasons given for putting him on the stand?

[Crossbow]

Tony started things off with the below:
[news excerpt concerning the discovery of numerous mass graves in Iraq]

I doubt any of the so-called "skeptics" will take this into account next time they are whining about WMD.

And a few hours later Tony posted this:
Because there were stustantial economic incentives for going to war with Iraq. Economics has always played a big part in warfare.

As they say on Sesame Street:

One of these things does not look like the other.
Which one of these things does not look like the other?

So which is it Tony?

Was the war about Saddam's poor human rights record, or
Was the war about the economic incentives, or
Perhaps some other reason you have yet to mention.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Was the war about Saddam's poor human rights record, or
Was the war about the economic incentives, or
Perhaps some other reason you have yet to mention.

It was about both. Do you find that difficult to understand? I also noticed how you took my comments out of context, good job.

[Crossbow]

OK, let me get this straight.

A few weeks ago we were being told that the US to fight Iraq because Saddam supported the 9-11 terrorism and that he has WMD which will soon be given to terrorists in order to attack the US again.

Now the cause de`jour is that we fought Iraq because of their poor human rights record and for their oil.

So, US concerns about human rights are in proportion to the amount of valuable resources that can be exploited from the offending country. Is this right?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow
OK, let me get this straight.

A few weeks ago we were being told that the US to fight Iraq because Saddam supported the 9-11 terrorism and that he has WMD which will soon be given to terrorists in order to attack the US again.



I dont know where you were, but the humanitarian reasons were emphasized many times in the months leading up to the war.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony


That answers nothing.

Why was clinton on the stand? What were the reasons given for putting him on the stand?
The reason for the investigation was to see if the Clintons had profitted illegally from a land deal in Arkansas. When these allegations proved unsubstantiated, the "special investigator", under the urging of the partisan Republican Congress, went on a "treasure hunt", trying to find absolutely anything they could nail Clinton on. In the end, they were reduced to asking about his sex life. And he lied. Maybe he shouldn't have lied, but one thing is for certain: they never had any reason to ask about it.

As one wag said before the 1996 election, "I don't know if Clinton committed adultry, but I'd bet that if every adulterer in the US voted for him he would win by the biggest landslide in history." Certainly he would have had the vote of Newt Gingrich.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

The reason for the investigation was to see if the Clintons had profitted illegally from a land deal in Arkansas. When these allegations proved unsubstantiated, the "special investigator", under the urging of the partisan Republican Congress, went on a "treasure hunt", trying to find absolutely anything they could nail Clinton on. In the end, they were reduced to asking about his sex life. And he lied. Maybe he shouldn't have lied, but one thing is for certain: they never had any reason to ask about it.




Thanks for the answer Tricky. That period was definatly a low point in american politics.

[Ladewig]

You tell me which was more significant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's(if he indeed, did lie) is more significant, but since clinton lied under oath it was a legal matter.

John Poindexter lied under oath about his involvement in a conspiracy to circumvent Constitutional law (Iran-Contra) and GWB appointed him to lead the Information Awareness Office in 2002. So, apparently lying under oath is sometimes unforgivable and sometimes forgivable.


Tricky-
Clinton at least tried (unsuccessfully) to protect the honor of both Lewinski and Hillary.

C'mon. I was against the impeachment hearings all along, but even I don't believe that one.

I believe an unstated factor in deciding to go to war was the need to move the U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. By rebuilding Iraq, we can put a permanent U.S. military base in the Middle East in a country with a government that will not protest its presence. The closing of the S.A. base was announced several days ago and the administration said the decision had absolutely nothing to do with Al-Queda's demand to close the military base in S.A.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I believe an unstated factor in deciding to go to war was the need to move the U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. By rebuilding Iraq, we can put a permanent U.S. military base in the Middle East in a country with a government that will not protest its presence. The closing of the S.A. base was announced several days ago and the administration said the decision had absolutely nothing to do with Al-Queda's demand to close the military base in S.A.

Unstated pre-war, but stated by Paul Wolfowitz post-war:
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia.
Source (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html)
In the same transcript, he also says:
The third [reason, the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people], as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.

[Tmy]

What Clinton did is irrelevent to the Iraq situation. You dont excuse a lie by bringing up another lier.

Thruth is we went in because of WMD. After the invasion all the hawks were like "Oh you peacenicks will see, we'll find the WMD then you'll eat your words. " Well it hasnt happend, and I dont see the hawks apologizing or even admitting they were wrong. These were the same people crapping all over Blix cause he couldnt find anything.

Instead its "we freed the Iraq people". How free they are remains to be seen. Plus that was never the purpose of invasion.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Tony


That was then, this is now. The conservatives were wrong and they didnt trust clinton to do the job right.


So its either all or none?

Yes, if it was morally right/necessary for us to lie about why we went into Iraq and then later tie the invasion to the discovery of mass graves, then it is just as imperative that we continue to fight until all of these countries are liberated or we can't afford to fight on anymore. Considering that most of these countries could be invaded for a lot less than 75 billion (not including pork) and that, as far as the Bush admin is concerned, a rebuilding plan is not really necessary, then we could take care of most of the lesser regimes around the world in a couple of years.

[Agammamon]

And here's another thing. Why do all of you guys who are pro war fail to mention that the Human rights abuses that are being trumped around were just side excuses before the invasion.

Does the fact that the current administration has at the least demonstrated a willful blindness towards data that doesn't fit its preconceived notions, possibly even forged data and lied, not bother you.

Clinton was almost impeached because he lied about his willy but we seem willing to let Bush off the hook.

Just because we were in the right after all doesn't make us heroes.

[Crossbow]

Ah tony you have helped me to behold the beauty of unfolding dogmatic logic.

It was worth the 100 million and it was worth turning the country and the constitution upside-down to impeach Clinton, because:
Clinton lied under oath.

It is also worth the 100 billion that was spent to invade Iraq because:

- Saddam helped the 9-11 terrorists (well, maybe not after all),
- Saddam had biological weapons (well, that may be a mistake too),
- Saddam had nukes (oops! well, no, that was wrong),
- Saddam had a dismal human rights record (well that is correct! see, some people can see the oblivious),
- Iraq has a lot of oil (that is oblivious too, but it would have appeared crass to admit to such a thing before the shooting started),
- Iraq can be the new home of the US presence in the Middle East (yeah, it was wise that they kept that item in the plan quiet until the war was over and done with).

Oh yeah and by the way, everyone should continue to support Bush in spite of his lies (but he and his administration did not actually lie under oath, so I guess that is OK), missleading statements, and double-talk because "You do not have to dig deep to justify the war in Iraq".

Maybe you do not have to do much digging, but I have been doing nothing but ever since the whole mess has started and I am still not done.

[Agammamon]

Heck, the war was cheap.

US Pop 291 million
Cost of war 80 billion (including pork)

cost per taxpayer approx $250

Number of countries in the world 191 (not incl USA)

So let's say $48000 per person to rid the world of evil, its a bargain at the price.*






*numbers may not reflect objective reality and are gleaned from data that may only exist in the fantasy world inside my head.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Unstated pre-war, but stated by Paul Wolfowitz post-war:



Not unstated (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/t02202003_t0219npr.html) pre-war:

Q: But the presence of -- I have to take you back one more time after the Gulf War. The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia has been one of the most inflammatory things for al Qaeda and groups like that. That they see U.S. occupation or U.S. presence in that country as something that they must fight against. How would it be any different in Iraq?

Wolfowitz: First of all, let's talk about Saudi Arabia. We won't need troops in Saudi Arabia when there's no longer an Iraqi threat. The Saudi problem will be transformed.


Osama Bin Laden's three main recruiting issues were:

Iraq sanctions: check

Troop presence in Fraudi Arabia: check

Israeli/Palestinian problem: in progress

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Not unstated (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/t02202003_t0219npr.html) pre-war:



Osama Bin Laden's three main recruiting issues were:

Iraq sanctions: check

Troop presence in Fraudi Arabia: check

Israeli/Palestinian problem: in progress

Fraudi Arabia; I like that! Anyway--unstated was probably a clumsy word to choose, but fitted the context of the post I was replying to, but "not explicitly made public as part of the agenda for attacking Iraq" lacks a certain... something.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Ah tony you have helped me to behold the beauty of unfolding dogmatic logic.

It was worth the 100 million and it was worth turning the country and the constitution upside-down to impeach Clinton, because:
Clinton lied under oath.




When did I ever say that? I love how you so-called "skeptics" resort to strawmen when you have nothing else.

Accually, after reading Tricky's post, I think the whole clinton scandal thing was pathetic.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony



Clinton lied under oath.

Any other questions Tony?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Any other questions Tony?

Look at the exchange Tricky and I had. If you need anymore clarification on my position after that, feel free to ask.

[Crossbow]

Tony:

- I did read the exchange between you and Tricky, and
- I did read the different reasons you have given as justification for the latest Gulf War, and
- I have been reading reading about this war in the news.

The post I wrote (the one you have issues with) is a product of those three information sources.

[Tony]

When I said

Clinton lied under oath.

I wasnt giving my position, I was objectivly stating the difference between clinton's lie and bush's alleged "lie".

And no, I dont think it was worth the money or the time to pursue clintons lie. And after learning all the facts, I think the conservatives made asses out of themselves.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
When I said

I wasnt giving my position, I was objectivly stating the difference between clinton's lie and bush's alleged "lie".

And no, I dont think it was worth the money or the time to pursue clintons lie. And after learning all the facts, I think the conservatives made asses out of themselves.
Yes, Tony dropped the comparison when the Clinton situation was explained. Lets all forget about that part. If you want to rag on him about the justification for the war, then let the fur fly. But he was big enough to admit he made a bad comparison.

Tony, do you really think morality is an illusion?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky


Tony, do you really think morality is an illusion?


For the most part, yes.

[Tricky]

If morality is an illusion, is there then no reason for anyone to behave in a fashion that most would call "moral"?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky
If morality is an illusion, is there then no reason for anyone to behave in a fashion that most would call "moral"?

Logic.

[Crossbow]

OK then Tony, Tricky, et al.

If the problem is to Tony having some difficulty in writing coherent arguments, then I can appreciate that because they have confused me as well.

- He started off by saying the last Gulf War was justified on humanitarian grounds.
- Then he said the war was justified on economic grounds.
- Then he went back to the humanitarian grounds.
- Then supported the Clinton impeachment because Clinton lied under oath about something rather trival.
- Then supported the Bush lies because they were not done under oath and they related to something important.
- Then said the Clinton impeachment was a significant waste of time and money.

And if the issue is now about the illusion of morality, then that is fine by me.

Edited to correct a typographic error.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow

- He started off by saying the last Gulf War was justified on humanitarian grounds.


Yes

- Then he said the war was justified on economic grounds.

Go back and read what I was responding to.

Originally posted by Gem
"why this one and not the other one?"


The argument is one of practicality. I would love to kill every tyrant but I realize that it may not be economically, or politically feasible.

- Then he went back to the humanitarian grounds.

Right

- Then supported the Clinton impeachment because Clinton lied under oath about something rather trival.

I never said I supported the clinton impeachment.

I wasnt giving my position, I was objectivly stating the difference between clinton's lie and bush's alleged "lie".


- Then supported the Bush lies because they were done under oath and they related to something important.

Bush lied under oath?

- Then said the Clinton impeachment was a significant waste of time and money.

Absolutly

And if the issue is now about the illusion of morality, then that is fine by me.

Tricky is addressing a comment I made earlier in the thread.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony


Logic.
Then I take it you believe behaving in a moral fashion is logical. I totally agree with this. In fact, I prefer logical morality to religious morality. But I think that whatever your reason for behaving moral, the fact that you do so means that morality is non-illusory.

I personally believe that in most cases, lying is immoral as well as illogical. The fact that Bush lied about the WMDs is hurting his standing both in the foreign and domestic arenas. This can be balanced somewhat by the fact that he took out a very bad man (a moral thing). This in turn is counterbalanced by the fact that he killed lots of innocent people in doing so (an immoral thing).

But even if you want to be pragmatic and judge the war only on the lingering effects, I still believe:
The US is not safer
The terrorists have been strengthened rather than weakened
The people of Iraq are only marginally better off than they were before the war, and in the long term, may be much worse off.
If there were WMDs, they are now in the hands of terrorists who are widely scattered.
Many of our former allies now distrust us more than ever
The cost of the war has forced the US economy (and perhaps the whole world) even deeper into the red.
Everyone is now saying, "Why don't you take out So-and-so. He's worse than Saddam".

These are many of the purely pragmatic reasons I feel like the war was a bad idea. I also thing aggression is immoral.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony


...

Bush lied under oath?

...

Tricky is addressing a comment I made earlier in the thread.

Sorry about that, I made a typo in my post that I have corrected, however it has been corrected now.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

I personally believe that in most cases, lying is immoral as well as illogical.

I guess that would depend on what you are lying about. If I lie to that cops to keep out of jail. That would be logical, would it not?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
I guess that would depend on what you are lying about. If I lie to that cops to keep out of jail. That would be logical, would it not?
That's why I covered my arse by saying "in most cases". I even started an old thread on "when is it okay to lie?" Your example might be one, but if you got caught in your lie, things could be worse for you.

However, I agree that there are certain occasions when it is required to lie. Like when my wife asks, "Do these pants make me look fat?":D