President Bush's Resignation Speech

[Ezfingers]

Originally Posted by JanusThePaladin

The theory that Bush was involved with 9/11 is as rediculous as the theory that FDR was responcible for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

^^^ what he said!! lol

[ColdCase]

Breaking News: 9/11 events led to a questionable invasion... it don't matter
whether it was legit or not.

I totally respect the notion that one must support a sitting president
while in the throws of a war. What I don't get is... even while supporting
him...why can't one question his motives and actions?

Why can't one admit that it was a gaff and STILL say: Even though it was
a mistake... I must support his efforts now that we are in the middle of a
conflict!

I just can't get past the fact that all indications show that the present
administration miscalculated and is now reduced to passing the problem
on to the next administration.

Splain...paaaalease!

[Ezfingers]

CC I totally understand where your comeing from. Either way im glad we did it. But Ill admit i have probably more open thoughts to going to war than most do. Not that i think war is good and want American soldiers to die. But feel we should take more advantage of the fact that were stronger than most of these rouge regimes and should topple them. Like N.Korea for instance. There people are so suppressed its sickening to me. There dictator is border line insane in my opinion. Like the bombing mission from Israel on Seria. Im sure we had part in promoteing that and the planning of it. Honestly Im happy about it. In my opinion these rouge countrys shouldnt be allowed to gain strenth in any department especially nuclear weapons in my opinion. There governments are just too unstable to allow it. I feel Israel has a right to be in the region. Half of these rouge dictator ruled countrys when or if ever had enough strenth. Would wipe Israel off the face of the planet if have the chance. I feel its our obligation as a allie to Israel to help keep a balance of power tilted in Israels favor keeping them stronger than most in the region.

[Ezfingers]

CC I want you to know i understand the point your trying to make. Did the Bush administration deceive the American public and the world about his motives for the invasion? I believe in the downfall of the Saddam regime. In my mind he was a ruthless dictator and needed to go. So basically dont care if bush did or didnt deceive the public. Now your sitting there in awe wondering how can i think its ok to lie in his position. If he was lieing. I guess i feel sometimes certain things. Not always pretty need to be said to get the job done. Im not saying he was lieing. But if he was. Dont care either. Thats how much I despise these ruthless dictators. But I also understand alot feel it isnt our place in doing this. I also want you to know its easy for someone to sit here and promote war. Especially when there life, meaning mine isnt at risk. But will say I did try to join the marines during the first golf war and was denied due to previous knee injury from baseball.

[ColdCase]

"Sometimes people invent [or distort] facts because they believe that the conclusion that it would lead people to is true, so they convince themselves that, in some deep way, they're not really lying or they're not really being dishonest because the message they're conveying is one that's true."

In effect, what you are saying, EZ, is that if the goal 'the ends' is to reduce the risk of attack by terrorists and/or to protect Israel, then the process 'the means' by which one does that is inherently okay. If, for example, this means violating International Law and invading a country (such as Iraq) purely on the basis of what Iraq under Saddam Hussein might have done, then according to the Bush doctrine, it's okay to violate the law and any inconvenient moral principles encountered along the way.

The problem is: where does this chain of logic stop? Is it okay to torture prisoners because they might have vital information which will save the lives of troops? Is it okay to bomb cafes in Iraqi cities because they are allegedly popular meeting places for known terrorists?

This is the danger and the horror of religious zealots or fanatics who believe that they are somehow licensed to kill, all in the name of their glorious goal. They are so right in their quest that they are given automatic exemptions of adhering to the covenants of their religion with a free pass to heaven. Such dangers are not just al-Qaeda operatives searching for martyrdom (and 70 or so virgins in the after life) or Palestinians fighting their own glorious revolutionary war; it also applies to those who see themselves as bringing democracy and freedom to the world.

Ez, I guess that is where we disagree fundamentally, because I believe: that if an action is morally bad in itself, it cannot really serve a good end, even though it may on the surface appear to do so. Men in power have often tried to condone their use of violence or fraud by making it appear that what they did was for the social good and was, therefore, justified. But since the good society involves justice for all, a government which employs unjust means defeats the end it pretends to serve.

Either we are civilized or we're not.

As for thugs running countries...there are oodles of them doing
unspeakable things. Can we force all of them to stop?