Why Azimaith, I dare you to show me where there's ANY partisanship here. :D

#1 I wasn't speaking about any other president than the current one. I would say a lie that has led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans is a big one...so I will take presidential lies on a one-on-one basis.

#2 What changed during GWB's term that called for the invasion, occupation, and nation building of Iraq?

9/11? Prove a definite link to Iraq and 9/11 and I will concede the point.

Otherwise it was a nice try at making a point but doesn't sway me one bit nor deplete the validity of my own. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-28-2003, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color='white'> Same here. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>

Actually I didnt miss the point at all. I think the analogy is valid exactly how I wrote it. Besides, I didnt accuse anyone of being an anti-christ, actually another poster coined the term "antichrist Bush" a few posts before mine. I simply rebuked your rebukement of someone elses post where you refered to Bush as a "hateful warmonger" to disqualify him as being "anti-christ like" because the antichrist supposedly comes as a man of peace.

I merely illustrated how Bush did come as a man of peace, like the anti-christ does according to your own words, and did lie, one of the things the anti-christ is supposed lord of, and turned to war and nation-building.

If anything I would go rebuke the poster who originated the analogy if I were you. Also...if you didnt like the comparison in the first place why did you play along with it and not discredit it more specifically before I got involved in the discussion?

Oh, and I dont beleive in the anti-christ, so my use of the term is purely in the context of metaphor. So even if I did compare someone to the anti-christ it would be because they have behaved in a way that is traditionally associated with the mythical entity, like lying or being deceptive. So my analogy is perfectly valid from where I am sitting.

[ 08-29-2003, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

I'll take your avoiding the question as not having an answer... for now.

Every primary reason given to nation build in Iraq has been debunked, dismantled or discredited. Props can be given for removing a inhumane dictator, but that reason doesn't stand up to the consistency test and was not given as a primary reason for invasion.

Bush blatantly lied when he said in his campaign that he wouldn't do nation building. If this was truly his stance he would not have put a bunch of neocons, who have advocated nation-building in the middle east since the end of gulf war I, in key positions through out his administration.

That's why this forum is known affectionately as the Circular Discussion Forum [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

You know I think you have a point there! We could also add 25 PMs to that list. :D

MagiK, this discussion does not have to turn into an anti-Bush thread. But it is interesting that most wars America (possibly most other countries as well?) has been involved have boosted the president's approval ratings at first then to die down... Why should the next one (if there'll be a next one) be any different? All that's needed is some timing. ;)

Actually I didnt miss the point at all. I think the analogy is valid exactly how I wrote it. Besides, I didnt accuse anyone of being an anti-christ, actually another poster coined the term "antichrist Bush" a few posts before mine. I simply rebuked your rebukement of someone elses post where you refered to Bush as a "hateful warmonger" to disqualify him as being "anti-christ like" because the antichrist supposedly comes as a man of peace.

<font color='white'> Here are you exact words </font> 'Actually Satan is the father of lies, so Bush qualifies since he said that he wasnt going to do any nation building while campaigning for President in 2000. So he did come as a man of peace with that regards and now he is a nation building war-monger.' <font color='white'> Sounds accusing too me. </font>

I merely illustrated how Bush did come as a man of peace, like the anti-christ does according to your own words, and did lie, one of the things the anti-christ is supposed lord of, and turned to war and nation-building.

<font color='white'> It goes something like this. The anti-chirst comes as a man of peace, sufferes a massive head wound, recovers in expectional time, thus people start worshipping him. That may not be exact, but thats the gerneral idea.</font>

If anything I would go rebuke the poster who originated the analogy if I were you. Also...if you didnt like the comparison in the first place why did you play along with it and not discredit it more specifically before I got involved in the discussion?

<font color='white'> Play along with it? I quoted Rokken, saying he was incorrect, because the Anti-Christ comes as a man of peace. And then your quoted me, and so on. And IMO Bush didn't necessarily come as 'man of peace'. Man of peace would be more like a Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. type. </font>

Oh, and I dont beleive in the anti-christ, so my use of the term is purely in the context of metaphor. So even if I did compare someone to the anti-christ it would be because they have behaved in a way that is traditionally associated with the mythical entity, like lying or being deceptive. So my analogy is perfectly valid from where I am sitting. </font>[/QUOTE]

I'll take your avoiding the question as not having an answer... for now.

<font color='white'> Sure, buddy, sure </font>

Every primary reason given to nation build in Iraq has been debunked, dismantled or discredited. Props can be given for removing a inhumane dictator, but that reason doesn't stand up to the consistency test and was not given as a primary reason for invasion.

Bush blatantly lied when he said in his campaign that he wouldn't do nation building. If this was truly his stance he would not have put a bunch of neocons, who have advocated nation-building in the middle east since the end of gulf war I, in key positions through out his administration. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> Look, if you want another the war is just, the war is injust debate, go look through the archives, I sure as hell am not doing it again. I have made all the points (in the past) about what I thought about the war. They have been some mistakes, but I, along with the majority of the population, support the war.

As far as the nation building, would you like us too leave it like it is, no building at all. Wait,wait,wait, lemme guess. This wouldn't have happened if we had a througly thought this out, and didn't rush too war. There wouldn't have been riots and looting if was had our allies to help. There wouldn't be gurilla attacks if Bush didn't go in looking the rape the country of its oil. Or all of the above? Your choice.</font>

[ 08-29-2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

Most the past reasons to go to war have been debunked so there is no debate to have when one side ( pro-war) has nothing but a bunch of hot air. Besides the point I'm making isnt about the justification for war but the justification for a leader to say one thing and then do the opposite. BTW If the majority of people jump off a bridge, is it wise to follow along just because a majority is doing so?
Hey we made our bed and now we can sleep in it, some of us will never wake up either. I never once argued we were going to rape any land for oil. There are/were far better principled reasons to delay conflict and still no good reason not to delay it, no matter how much you spin it.

I know for a fact that we wouldnt be doing any nation building in Iraq if we hadn't taken it upon ourselves to invade the country. Bush wouldn't be facing a bold faced campaign lie concerning nation building and he wouldnt need a bunch of rabid apologists for it either.