(01-14-2012 06:57 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 06:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  You confuse objection to the reliable hawkish right's drumbeat for war with treason.

I didn't say treason. Ted Kennedy committed treason and should have been prosecuted for it. Your tendency to side with our enemies isn't treasonous as your doing so doesn't directly undermine this country. You lack a certain importance as a person to qualify as a true traitor by the legal definition.

Quote:We needed more people to speak out against the misadventure in Vietnam, not less.

Speaking out is one thing. But your immediate instinct is to take the word of our enemies over those of our leaders. Except Obama of course, and that's because he thinks like you do. That is your worldview. You don't view America as a force for good in this world, you view it as an oppressor and its motives nefarious. It stems from your worldview.

Quote:We needed more people to speak up and at least ask questions during your Iraq drumbeat. The more
things change the more they stay the same.

My drumbeat? Sorry, I don't think you're aware of how this country works. See my opinion on Iraq, or that of Bill Kristol's, has no constitutional authority to take our country to war.

Your problem is that you interpret anything counter to war propaganda as designed to aid other countries at the expense of America. See I think that it's not in our nation's best interests fo start another possibly very costly war in terms of blood and treasure. I believe this because I see the threat to us as overblown, and I see people afraid to counter the talk for fear of being labeled anti American. It's ridiculous and prevents a full honest debate on the merits of war, is bad for democracy and is not in our interests.

Don't. Mistake what I say for love of Iran. I think they're lying when they say they're not pursuing nukes. Theit Holocaust denial conference was deplorable. I'm not naive, but I think you are. You believe everything we or Israel say (and the latter BTW denies having nukes even though it's widely known they have hundreds). That's what is naive. If you demand strict proof of lying by neocons BTW then you have to apply the same standard to Iran. Where are the lies, and where's your proof of INTENT of lying?

(01-14-2012 07:13 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:02 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Happy?

Yes. You proved my point. You have no evidence to support your claims that anyone lied to get us into Iraq. I knew you'd come through.

While I'm sure it's a surprise to you, restating that someone lied is not evidence that they lied.

See the main flaw in your assertion is that if, as you say, Bush lied to get us into Iraq, then France, Britain, Russia and the UN all had to have lied as well.

So you have a choice. Either you believe all of those lied about the danger Saddam posed, or none of them lied, since they all said the same things.

So which will it be?

Um, they believed our lies. Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was based on Curveball, who like I said had no credibility.

(01-14-2012 07:27 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Your problem is that you interpret anything counter to war propaganda as designed to aid other countries at the expense of America.

Wrong again. Your siding with our enemies doesn't bring any value to them. They are not aided by your embracing of them outside of anyone you might dupe into thinking your way. But again, the impact of that is pretty limited and overall fairly harmless.

Quote: You believe everything we or Israel say (and the latter BTW denies having nukes even though it's widely known they have hundreds). That's what is naive.

I believe it until I see credible evidence to the contrary. I know full well Israel has nukes and has for decades. We gave them to them.

Quote:If you demand strict proof of lying by neocons BTW then you have to apply the same standard to Iran. Where are the lies, and where's your proof of INTENT of lying?

Why would you request of me a standard you are unwilling to meet yourself? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal. Double standards are your stock in trade.

Tell you what. You back up your claims of lying by the "neo-cons" that got us into war. Then I will respond to whatever items you list where I have accused Iran of lying. Seems only fair since I asked you first right?

I'll await your proof.

(01-14-2012 07:32 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Um, they believed our lies. Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was based on Curveball, who like I said had no credibility.

Interesting. So what you're saying is that Russia, France and Britain don't have their own intelligence services? They had no intelligence at all on Iraq?

And when Russia warned us that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US, they were relying on the intelligence we gave them to then tell us what, presumably, we would have already known?

And I'm still waiting on your proof they were lies. I'm starting to think you don't have it. Hmmmm.

Maybe someday we'll contain ourselves when discussing going into Iraq to the actual reasons.

First you say liberals support America's enemies then you say I have no impact. Which is it?

That's a strawman anyway. Impact or not, you accuse liberals of aligning with enemies. My response is that presenting a counterargument for war is not so aligning. It's a hawkish tactic used to stifle debate.

In other words, you can't, or otherwise missed my point of your standard being unreasonably burdensome.

(01-14-2012 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Maybe someday we'll contain ourselves when discussing going into Iraq to the actual reasons.

I think we're missing a major story here Paul. Max Power is breaking a huge story wide open on this very message board. A story the press has been dying to make for years, that Bush lied to get us into war. I truly think that we'll see all of this on 60 minutes in the coming weeks and we'll be able to say we were there, in this very thread, when Max Power broke the story of the 21st century.

Max, the second hand of 60 minutes.

(01-14-2012 07:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  First you say liberals support America's enemies then you say I have no impact. Which is it?

I support the Carolina Panthers. It has no impact on if they win games or not. Embrace the distinction.

Quote:That's a strawman anyway. Impact or not, you accuse liberals of aligning with enemies. My response is that presenting a counterargument for war is not so aligning. It's a hawkish tactic used to stifle debate.

I made clear in a previous post that making a counter argument is not aligning. You either didn't comprehend it or ignored it. I was very clear that your siding with our enemies stems from your worldview. It's not that you look at both sides and make your determination. It's that your default position is to side with our enemies.

Quote:In other words, you can't, or otherwise missed my point of your standard being unreasonably burdensome.

Since that wasn't my standard, your "point" is fairly meaningless. Try again.

(01-14-2012 07:53 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Max, the second hand of 60 minutes.

Wonder if Max is really Bill Burket?

They had intelligence but couldn't prove a negative of course.

Terrorist attack =/= WMDs and al Qaeda ties.

Let me see if you can understand it this way. If a person says something, and that something turns out to be false, and that person gives no reasonable explanation for his belief in the false statement, are you convinced that person lied? Or do you need to read his brain waves? You must be pretty gullible. On an unrelated note, I have some property you might be interested in.

(01-14-2012 07:57 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Let me see if you can understand it this way. If a person says something, and that something turns out to be false, and that person gives no reasonable explanation for his belief in the false statement, are you convinced that person lied? Or do you need to read his brain waves?

There is a Senate report and a British government report that both say no one lied. They both say there was intelligence pointing to Iraq having WMDs. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and many other democrats believed he had WMDs, right up until Bush became president of course.

So your claim that they lied can't be substantiated. Numerous people have looked at the intelligence that was used. Yes, in hindsight it was flawed. But see people don't have the benefit of hindsight when they make their decisions.

Quote:You must be pretty gullible. On an unrelated note, I have some property you might be interested in.

That was cute. What's really a shame is you have absolutely no idea what a reasonable and sound argument looks like. As a result you're incapable of making one.

How bout this. You just admit you simply want to believe Bush lied and have nothing to support it other than your own personal bias. I'd have much more respect for you that way. Or at least as much as I'm capable of having for you.

You support the Panthers how? If you do nothing to help them you are not supporting them.

Your second response is completely ridiculous. So I'm siding with them but not aligning with them? You're arguing semantics here at best, at worst dodging the issue. You accuse me of supporting and siding with enemies, but not alignment. Lol gee thanks. And my worldview isn't any more biased than yours, which you've admitted assumes the truth of everything coming from Israel (and somehow dismiss the fact Israel says they don't have nukes when they do because we gave them some? What? How does that make it any less of a lie?). Again, by accusing me of aligning, supporting, siding, whatever you're just trying to stifle debate on war. You're a neo-con artist.

That was your standard, ie intent.

So you still don't understand it in other words. Just false intel, no one lied? Just too much of a leap for you?

(01-14-2012 08:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So you still don't understand it in other words. Just false intel, no one lied?

Well, there are two reports, one by our Senate and the Butler Report in Britain that state just that. Does the conspiracy extend to our Senate and the British Parliament?

Quote: Just too much of a leap for you?

I try not to make leaps based on no evidence unlike you. The fact that you would ask that question shows how you approach things like this.

Thanks for validating the arguments I've been making with your posts. I'm going to watch football now. You have a video of Bill Maher to get ready for. Don't forget the tube sock.

(01-14-2012 08:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So I'm siding with them but not aligning with them?

sigh

You are doing both. What I said was that simply making a counter argument is not in and of itself aligning with them. You are not simply doing that. Your default position is to side with our enemies. To give their point of view more validity than that of this country.

I understand you are incapable of comprehending the point I'm making given your intellectual limitations.

I'll leave you to your last rant that will undoubtedly continue to the miss the point.

(01-14-2012 08:05 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 07:57 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Let me see if you can understand it this way. If a person says something, and that something turns out to be false, and that person gives no reasonable explanation for his belief in the false statement, are you convinced that person lied? Or do you need to read his brain waves?

There is a Senate report and a British government report that both say no one lied. They both say there was intelligence pointing to Iraq having WMDs. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and many other democrats believed he had WMDs, right up until Bush became president of course.

So your claim that they lied can't be substantiated. Numerous people have looked at the intelligence that was used. Yes, in hindsight it was flawed. But see people don't have the benefit of hindsight when they make their decisions.

Quote:You must be pretty gullible. On an unrelated note, I have some property you might be interested in.

That was cute. What's really a shame is you have absolutely no idea what a reasonable and sound argument looks like. As a result you're incapable of making one.

How bout this. You just admit you simply want to believe Bush lied and have nothing to support it other than your own personal bias. I'd have much more respect for you that way. Or at least as much as I'm capable of having for you.

"If a person says something, and that something turns out to be false, and that person gives no reasonable explanation for his belief in the false statement, are you convinced that person lied?" sounds like a pretty logical way of thinking, though the "one person" we're talking about (POTUS) always seems to be blamed for every single thing that happens during their administration.

Hey look what I found--Bush lied by claiming Saddam barred UN weapons inspectors in refusing to comply with Resolution 1441!

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5663...bout_iraq/

Now it's your turn, right?

LOL the reports state no one lied? Where?

I think I'll save my tube socks for watching Tim Tebow get. pwned by the Ravens D.

So my counterargument is aligning with them by virtue of the fact I give their word more credibility than ours (not true BTW) as is my default position? Otherwise I wouldn't be aligning. Glad we got that cleared up.

Too bad I'm not a card carrying conservative so I could argue against war without aligning against America. Once again, GOPers think they have a monopoly on patriotism.

MTSU, I wasn't necessarily indicting Bush for coming up with the lie. The lie was developed before it got to him probably, and he maybe he just didn't question it like he should have. He did lie though about one justification at least as I posted.

Look, Ninerfan, please don't put words in my mouth or embark on some amateur psychology trip and tell me what my worldview is. TYIA.