Are you an atheist?

[ParanoidAndroid]

Are you suggesting that the Iraq war would have occurred without GWB consenting. He could have prevented it so he must take responsiblity.

I do not have enough knowledge of how the US government works to answer that conclusively. Part of me desperately wants it to to work in a way that GWB had little to no influence over such a big decision of declaring war. Perhaps I am guilty of wishful thinking!

As for taking the entire blame because he consented to it - I think that is part of the problem with the scapegoat culture... It allows the other people who were instrumental in the decision making process to get away with it and allows them to continue in their current positions and perhaps ultimately making the same mistakes again.

 

[Rabbie]

I do not have enough knowledge of how the US government works to answer that conclusively. Part of me desperately wants it to to work in a way that GWB had little to no influence over such a big decision of declaring war. Perhaps I am guilty of wishful thinking!

As for taking the entire blame because he consented to it - I think that is part of the problem with the scapegoat culture... It allows the other people who were instrumental in the decision making process to get away with it and allows them to continue in their current positions and perhaps ultimately making the same mistakes again.

I was not saying that GWB had sole responsibility but he did (and should) have considerable influence in these decisions. he is after all head of the administration. In the same way Tony Blair also has to take responsibilty in supporting the US in these actions.

In a democracy these decision should be taken by the executive and approved by the elected representatives. Advice should taken from the military on the practicalities of any action that is being considered but the final decision must be taken by the executive.

 

[dkinley]

Your points 1 & 2 seem to be in contradiction to Points 3 & 4.

Your assumption in Point 4 seems to be just that - an unsupported assumption which I have no need of.

Since regression by definition is the state of growing smaller, they work if you suscribe to infitestimal estimation. Sorta like, how much precision you want behind the decimal point? =]

The opposite of regression, projection, does not have the same flaw because it is based on effect. It is limited because it can always approach infinity, be estimated at an infinite point, but never touch; therefore never cross infinity.

Through this technique we know the bounds (or think we do) so in effect have to interpolate the between. That is the flaw; hence the contradiction. There are not enough data points in the chain to 'prove' the interpolation because not all events are directly or capable of being directly observed. So for points 1 & 2 to be able to be in the same room with points 3 & 4, we have invented words like 'faith' for the religious folks and 'hope' for those that are not (or have the belief in individual capability). Point 5 is determined by which word you prefer to use.

However, it all makes for great conjecture.

-dK

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Public law 107-243 passed by the United State Congress authorized the "Iraq War". As Commander in Chief of the United States Military, the President of the United States is responsible for carrying out wars written into law by Congress. It's his job.

President Bush requested that Congress pass the law but had no way of forcing them to do it. They passed the law after they checked out and justified it.

Not sure what this has to do with belief in God, but it seems to be where the thread has meandered (as usual).

 

[oumahexi]

Public law 107-243 passed by the United State Congress authorized the "Iraq War". As Commander in Chief of the United States Military, the President of the United States is responsible for carrying out wars written into law by Congress. It's his job.

President Bush requested that Congress pass the law but had no way of forcing them to do it. They passed the law after they checked out and justified it.

Not sure what this has to do with belief in God, but it seems to be where the thread has meandered (as usual).

Isn't it odd that we always "blame" the political leader at the time for acts of war? Sometimes they are unavoidable and it would make little difference who was in power at the time.

 

[Alisa]

Isn't it odd that we always "blame" the political leader at the time for acts of war? Sometimes they are unavoidable and it would make little difference who was in power at the time.

I find myself on both sides of this one. On one hand, I think that my congressional representatives are guilty - they signed the blank check, and it was certainly within their power to have prevented this whole fiasco.

On the other hand, they would not have done it had Bush and Cheney not created so much false information and confusion. Bush repeatedly linked 9/11 to Iraq, and even today you will still find people that believe there is a link. They pretended that there was some sort of imminent threat from Iraq, when there wasn't, they created fictional "evidence" to support their case, and they tried to paint anyone who was (and is) anti-war as being unpatriotic.

Who is more guilty, the pawn or the leader?

They may both be equally guilty, but I see how McBush is attempting to use the very same techniques to get Americans riled up about Iran right now, and I think that at this point, getting a new leader in there is more important than replacing all of the representatives.

 

[oumahexi]

Bush repeatedly linked 9/11 to Iraq, and even today you will still find people that believe there is a link. They pretended that there was some sort of imminent threat from Iraq, when there wasn't, they created fictional "evidence" to support their case, and they tried to paint anyone who was (and is) anti-war as being unpatriotic.

If that is the case, and I have heard the conspiracy that the whole 9/11 thing was planned by the US Government (which I find very difficult to swallow), then it's a shame, it really is.

On the other hand, I have not found it in myself to trust the Islamics since the 1980s when Iotolla Clemeny announced that "the sword of Islam will not rest until the earth is cleansed of infadels, Jews and Christians". I see very little difference between their extreme wings and that of a certain German (Austrian if you want to be picky) dictator in the 1930s...

My apologies to those Islamics who do not follow the war mongering leaders, I understand that you cannot be held responsible for the few, but their views are a very real threat to civilisation.

I know the argument is that the war is about Thermo Nuclear Devices and / or oil, but I can't help wonder ...

 

[georgedwilkinson]

On the other hand, they would not have done it had Bush and Cheney not created so much false information and confusion.

The people in Congress are big boys. If you spend any time with any one of them you'll find they are in no way average people who can easily be pushed around. I'd go so far as to say that even the ones I disagree with are by no means slackers.

As such, they were clever enough to build the reasoning for the law on ALL the perceived reasons for making the declaration, not just the popular reasons cited by those opposed to the war. Additionally, Bush said it way back when and it still applies today: they (Congress) had the exact same information he had. Not watered down, not filtered by him, Rich, me, Alisa. The EXACT information he had. They can say he deceived them (or I did, or Rich, or Alisa) but the fact is, they can read and think for themselves. To do otherwise is just political posturing.

I'm sorry some of the information (seemingly) turned out to be unreliable, but that's not Bush's fault, or Obama's, or McCain's, or mine, or yours. As much as we want it to be.

 

[dkinley]

... they would not have done it had Bush and Cheney not created so much false information and confusion. Bush repeatedly linked 9/11 to Iraq, and even today you will still find people that believe there is a link. They pretended that there was some sort of imminent threat from Iraq, when there wasn't, they created fictional "evidence" to support their case, and they tried to paint anyone who was (and is) anti-war as being unpatriotic.

Who is more guilty, the pawn or the leader?

Even though this is an anti-democratic video, it serves because they have gathered up a whole bunch of video clips into a single repository ..

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae9_1207228741

I have to step back and think because of the rife between the parties that the democrats in this video took Bush's words and trusted it 100% especially since the position of some of the Democrats were in "positions of the know". Albright because of her position on Clinton's staff, Biden because of his committee and Hilary because you know that she knew because of her current political seating and Bill's connection to information and then Gore doing a 180 after he had to know, too.

In effect, it is useless for anyone to claim the we-were-just-pawns-blame game. Obama gets a pass because he wasn't elected and therefore couldn't vote against it (no matter how he tries to convince me otherwise). So again, it comes down to a matter of trust, or more specifically, who can I trust more. Trust is lost when people won't even remotely begin to have self-accountability.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

The people in Congress are big boys. If you spend any time with any one of them you'll find they are in no way average people who can easily be pushed around. I'd go so far as to say that even the ones I disagree with are by no means slackers.

As such, they were clever enough to build the reasoning for the law on ALL the perceived reasons for making the declaration, not just the popular reasons cited by those opposed to the war. Additionally, Bush said it way back when and it still applies today: they (Congress) had the exact same information he had. Not watered down, not filtered by him, Rich, me, Alisa. The EXACT information he had. They can say he deceived them (or I did, or Rich, or Alisa) but the fact is, they can read and think for themselves. To do otherwise is just political posturing.

I'm sorry some of the information (seemingly) turned out to be unreliable, but that's not Bush's fault, or Obama's, or McCain's, or mine, or yours. As much as we want it to be.

It IS Bush's fault that they FORGED evidence to concoct the yellowcake - Niger story. It IS George Tenet's fault that he distorted the available intelligence in order to tell the story that the Bush administration wanted told.

I am not excusing the representatives who went along with it, and, by the way, there were many who did not although the media all but ignored them.

 

[Alisa]

If that is the case, and I have heard the conspiracy that the whole 9/11 thing was planned by the US Government (which I find very difficult to swallow), then it's a shame, it really is.

On the other hand, I have not found it in myself to trust the Islamics since the 1980s when Iotolla Clemeny announced that "the sword of Islam will not rest until the earth is cleansed of infadels, Jews and Christians". I see very little difference between their extreme wings and that of a certain German (Austrian if you want to be picky) dictator in the 1930s...

My apologies to those Islamics who do not follow the war mongering leaders, I understand that you cannot be held responsible for the few, but their views are a very real threat to civilisation.

I know the argument is that the war is about Thermo Nuclear Devices and / or oil, but I can't help wonder ...

I don't think anyone believes that we did this to ourselves. The point was, bin Laden was based in Afghanistan. Al quaeda and bin Laden had no ties to Iraq whatsoever at the time (of course, since then, Al quaeda has taken up residence in Iraq, but that is another issue). 9/11 and Iraq never had anything to do with one another.

Now Islamic extremism is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I don't believe that invading and occupying another country because you don't like the religion that their people practice is the solution (at the time, Iraq was NOT an Islamic state, although now it is).

 

[oumahexi]

(at the time, Iraq was NOT an Islamic state, although now it is).

It wasn't? I have to say, that's news to me. We were led to believe they were Islamic.

 

[dkinley]

Could we have done it to ourselves? By leaving the security door open or just downright actually doing it?

The former we know to be true, but the latter? I have always been astounded when I read this (although not originally at this site) supposedly obtained through Freedom of Information.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

If the government was going to do it once, how many times in the past did they do it and how many times in the future could they do it?

-dK

 

[Alisa]

It wasn't? I have to say, that's news to me. We were led to believe they were Islamic.

Yep, it's funny what the media "forgets" to tell us. Now, the new constitution, which we helped them write, does include Islamic law. How's that for an improvement?

 

[Rabbie]

It wasn't? I have to say, that's news to me. We were led to believe they were Islamic.

That's because it suited Blair and GWB to invade Iraq Osama Bin Ladan in those days was critical of Saddam's Iraq because it was a secular dictatorship and not an Islamic state following Sharia law

 

[oumahexi]

That's because it suited Blair and GWB to invade Iraq Osama Bin Ladan in those days was critical of Saddam's Iraq because it was a secular dictatorship and not an Islamic state following Sharia law

You see, this is why I try to keep my neb out of politics, you just get bombarded with lies from every angle. Thank goodness for A.S. He wouldn't lie to us, would he ...

(darn, I've usedup all my question marks again !)

 

[Alisa]

You see, this is why I try to keep my neb out of politics, you just get bombarded with lies from every angle. Thank goodness for A.S. He wouldn't lie to us, would he ...

(darn, I've usedup all my question marks again !)

Mostly from the right wing. The left still admits that facts actually matter.

 

[oumahexi]

Mostly from the right wing. The left still admits that facts actually matter.

Our left even lie about being left

 

[Rabbie]

Our left even lie about being left

We have a left

 

[Rich]

We have a left

Yes it's called the communist party