Nathan I'm talking to everyone. Raquel I agree that we be talking about the Iraq war instead of instead of insulting each other. That what I was saying in the first place. Now can we be civil and return to the topic?

whats asinine?

It is asinine to ask people what a word means when you are on a computer. You could always look it up on dictionary.com.

just because s/o condones lying for one case doesnt mean he a rotton liar or has the wrong moral standards.

True. If one says, "Lie to youyr mother and tell her dinner was good. She worked really hard on it and it would help her feel great," I don't think that shows they have the wrong moral standards.

However, when one condones lying in order to involve a country in a war which inevitably also involves the death of soldiers and innocent civilians, then, yes, they do lack moral character.

kyle= ur points were good. i dont agree with EVERYTHING you said, but the ones i did agree with, were sharp and to the point.

hi y'all! just got 2 points to add:
1) whats asinine? e/o keeps using the word and its kinda annoying when i dont know what it means....
2) about nathan.... i think ur prob is u see things in black or white... either s/o is stupid or smart, a complete liar or complettly saying the truth, intolerant or completly accepting.....
u gotta remember that just because s/o condones lying for one case doesnt mean he a rotton liar or has the wrong moral standards.... it takes more than one view on an isolated political event to judge a person's moral code.... as kyle aptly stated previously.

and also..... lets all try to keep this all cool, calm and collected. personally, i tend to listen better to pl who dont resort to personal slurs on pl's characters and just stick to "friendly fire."

y'know what i mean?

You know the longer you rant the less people understand you. Just say it clear & simple, you can't prove your point if people have no idea what your talking about.

Who are you speaking to? People can't understand you if you aren't clear.

Just say it clear & simple, you can't prove your point if no one understands you.
Why don't you try starting over again clearly and prove your point instead of insulting your opponents?

I don't defend dishonesty, lying, or w/e else you want to pin on me but in this SPECIFIC incident with Iraq I do

So you do defend dishonesty/lying. You just admitted to it.

If you can't defend yourself and your bigotry just ignore that part of the post and stick to what you can defend.

Bigotry, no. Intolerence....I am changing my mind on that. I suppose I was assuming you meant that I was "unjustly intolerant." Assuming that you simply meant intolerant, I will say that yes, I am intolerant of religion. I am intolerant of stupidity, wild claims and belief without evidence. Perhaps you tolerate that Kyle. Unfortunately, that doesn't say much for you.

Let's clear up some facts. Facts come in handy. We did not go to war because Saddam chose to be "against us."

But let's pause here. What if that was the reason? Is that at all fair or reasonable? Can we just pick a country out of a hat, point at them and say, "Are you with us? If you are not with us, you are, by default, against us, and therefore we are justified in attacking you." I'll pose the question again, because no one has answered it: Should we attack every country that was not part of our Iraq war coalition? They were obviously not with us, so they must have been against us. Another question: do these rules work for other countries, or just us? Can, say, Venezuela justifiably attack us because we're not "with them"? If yes, I hope you can see that this weak standard for justifiable violence would lead to total chaos. If no, then what makes us so special? How come, and according to whom, are we allowed to be so violent, but others are not?

Back to the point. What the president said to Iraq was not simply "you're either with us or your against us." What he told them was to give up their WMD. Well, since they had none, this was a difficult demand to meet. It's very difficult to prove to another country that you're not hiding a secret stash of weapons. The best you can do is to allow independent inspectors to come in and look for the weapons. Which Iraq did.

Let's clear another thing up. Bush might not have said explicitly that Iraq was behind 9/11, but he very deliberately began equivocating Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in his speeches. As early as September 12, members of the Bush administration were requesting intelligence that would link 9/11 to Iraq. To act like it's a total coincidence that Americans came to believe that Iraq was connected to 9/11 strains incredulity.

Also, let's keep Obama out of this. None of us who were against the war have said anything about Obama. You don't know whether or not we voted for him or support him or his policies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq war, which began when Obama was a state senator. This is a cheap argumentative tactic. It makes a number of incorrect assumptions: 1. All people are Republicans who support and agree with all Republicans, or Democrats who support and agree with all Democrats; 2. If one side can be proven to be in the wrong, then the other side must be in the right; 3. The argument is not about whether or not the Iraq war was right, but is about which side - Democrats or Republicans - is right. All of these assumptions are wrong.

No I'm doing what you do all the time, take everything you say literally. You don't agree with taht "ends justify the means" well, I gave you an example from history where the ends justified the means that you have no problem with.

Or how about, also on the Revolution topic, the patriots blowing the taxes out of proportion to the common man to get them on their side? The colonists weren't paying 1/3 what the Britons were paying but through propaganda by the local government officials and well known people they got the citizens to rebel. The patriots "lied" or exaggerated the truth did they not? They implied something, and teh common man ran with it.

I'm glad they did, like I'm glad Bush entered Iraq. I don't defend dishonesty, lying, or w/e else you want to pin on me but in this SPECIFIC incident with Iraq I do, because it was the right thing to do, which is the REAL topic of this discussion.

"Faith doesn't rely on reason. Religion relies on faith. Therefore, religion doesn't rely on reason. That's fact. Quit being illogical and get over it."

In my post I even listed reason and religion as TWO seperate things, so Obviously you pointing that out to me is pointless. Though, just because you use reason and reason only doesn't mean others have to.

And quit saying I'm not making sense when I call you a bigot or intolerent of religion because thats exactly what your being. If you can't defend yourself and your bigotry just ignore that part of the post and stick to what you can defend.

Yes it makes you intolerent. Thats how they think, whether it be influenced by religion or reason, thats waht they think. Quit being a bigot and get over it.

I wish that made some sort of sense so I could respond to it. Unfortunately, I can't think for you Kyle. You have to do it on your own.

Faith doesn't rely on reason. Religion relies on faith. Therefore, religion doesn't rely on reason. That's fact. Quit being illogical and get over it.

Unfair warfare against Britain during the revolution? Those tactics at the time were frowned upon, which would be "the means" and "the ends" would be our freedom from Britain.

Also makes no sense. Because something in a particular period of time is frowned upon doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make it a case of "ends justifying means."

You are defending the US lying to its citizens to justify a war. Why don't we talk about what we are actually talking about? You defend lying. I don't. You defend dishonesty to further hidden agendas. I don't. I defend integrity. You don't.

"No, actually it doesn't. Religious people, by definition, do not use logic and reason when it comes to their faith. If I "attack" someone for being illogical and unreasonable when it is a fundamental principle of theirs, it isn't being intolerant."

Yes it makes you intolerent. Thats how they think, whether it be influenced by religion or reason, thats waht they think. Quit being a bigot and get over it.

"Here you go again. You think the ends justify the means. You don't even care if your government lies to you. You even think it should lie to you if it "has a good reason to do so."

Unfair warfare against Britain during the revolution? Those tactics at the time were frowned upon, which would be "the means" and "the ends" would be our freedom from Britain.

Shoot it down all you like. The guerilla warfare used by the Americans was frowned upon by everyone BUT the french for it was not how war was fought back then, which makes it not right(in those times), yet we all get to voice our opinions on whatever we want because the patriots guerilla tactics, "the means", justified "the ends, Liberty.

What has Obama lied about?

But Person B (Obama) has done bad in less time than Bush did and has already gone back on promises made.

No, what you did was try to pass the buck.

"Bush lied."

You - "Well, Kyle didn't lie. He just supports a liar."

"That's wrong to support a liar."

You - "Well, you support a liar."

First, what you should have done is either condemn a person for supporting a liar or justify why it is okay to support a liar. Pointing out that someone else supports a liar doesn't help your point. It doesn't show that your statement was accurate.

Also, what promises are these that you speak of that Obama went back on?

Don't attack Jayda because you don't agree with me, and especially just because she's religous that makes you just as intolerent as the religious people you feel are intolerent.

No, actually it doesn't. Religious people, by definition, do not use logic and reason when it comes to their faith. If I "attack" someone for being illogical and unreasonable when it is a fundamental principle of theirs, it isn't being intolerant.

And just because you disagree me doesn't mean I don't have intergrity. all you know is that I stand behind what our President did and you disagree with what he did

You stand behind lying in order to accomplish goals. That doesn't show integrity.

So no they didn't lie and even if the government had lied, they killed an evil dictator who was using mustard gas on his own people which is a good thing.

Here you go again. You think the ends justify the means. You don't even care if your government lies to you. You even think it should lie to you if it "has a good reason to do so."

Here's the problem with lying to accomplish an end goal. The fact that one needs to lie implies that there actually isn't a good reason to do whatever it is that one is suggesting should be done.

It is much like the anti-drug commercial that makes it look like marijuana has led to a girl getting AIDS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvqeaQIIx...

"She went to a party, got high, got stupid, and now she has HIV."

Say what? They kind of left out the real problem which is where she had unprotected sex with someone she didn't know. But let's not worry about that. Let's say the weed did it. That way kids won't do drugs.

They are lying to kids and making marijuana seem dangerous when it is relatively benign. They do this because if they told the truth, that weed is carcinogenic but that's about it, they know kids wouldn't care. They lie and manipulate because the truth won't lead to what they want (kids not to smoke weed. For whatever reason they want this I don't know.)

Lies must occur when there is no good reason supporting whatever agenda a particular person has.

If there are good reasons, there is no need to lie.

As your example showed, I never said that Person A (Bush) never did anything bad. His second term was crap and he did some things that even Conservatives didn't like. But Person B (Obama) has done bad in less time than Bush did and has already gone back on promises made.

Obama's been a liar and you condone him.

Common tactic.

"Person A did something bad."

"Oh yea, well I think person B did something bad."

"I never said Person B didn't. However, can you please answer that charge that Person A did something wrong?"

You see, blaming a thrid party for doing the same thing as a second party doesn't actually excuse what the second party did.

"Perhaps you feel that way, but that doesn't really surprise me coming from a religious person."

What the hell is your problem? Don't attack Jayda because you don't agree with me, and especially just because she's religous that makes you just as intolerent as the religious people you feel are intolerent.

And just because you disagree me doesn't mean I don't have intergrity. You don't know me, all you know is that I stand behind what our President did and you disagree with what he did.

And for the record, Bush never said Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. He said they could possibly have WMD and that was the reason he gave. NEver did he mention Iraq being involved with 9/11. So no they didn't lie and even if the government had lied, they killed an evil dictator who was using mustard gas on his own people which is a good thing. Now, Bush never said Iraq DIDN'T have anything to do with 9/11 but its not his fault the public jumped to conclusions.

In some cases lying is not hte best way to go but when you need to get something done immediately for hte greater good of the world, its okay to do.

Obama's been a liar and you condone him.

Condoning the liar is just as bad.

He's not the one lying, is he?

I'd say that Kyle has integrity because he speaks his mind and his beliefs, and, in all honesty, the truth.

Jayda, he just said it is okay to lie to people in order to get what you want. If you think that is integrity, you better look at the definition you typed again.

Lies = Morality?

Perhaps you feel that way, but that doesn't really surprise me coming from a religious person.

But, if the ends justify any means, then you have no morals to consider if these means are unethical, for if any means is ethical, so any morals to discriminate means are useless.

Integrity = firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility.

I'd say that Kyle has integrity because he speaks his mind and his beliefs, and, in all honesty, the truth.

so, yes, the ends justify the means.

Wow, you must have no integrity whatsoever.

"So you agree with the government lying to the American people in order to pursue a hidden agenda? You claim the ends justify the means?"

It isn't the first time the government has done it and if Obama's administration did it we wouldn't be having this conversation because you wouldl just look the other way so, yes, the ends justify the means.

Does that make what I was saying easier?

Well, once you start using words correctly, I may be happy. First you said,You ask anyone and we ARE a Christian nation.

Then you said, muslims VIEW us as a Christian nation.

These are two very different statements. I may agree with the second, but I certainly don't agree with the first.

We killed an evil dictator so yes.

So you agree with the government lying to the American people in order to pursue a hidden agenda? You claim the ends justify the means?

"Do you support such actions?"

We killed an evil dictator so yes.

"No, we are not a Christian nation. We have seperation of chrusch and state. Sometimes that line is crossed, unfortunately, but the majority of the time, the wall remains intact." \

Again, you're taking as we literally have the title of a Christian nation which IS NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying the majority of our people are Christians, yes? So...in turn the muslims VIEW us as a Christian nation that threatens their MUSLIM way of life.

Does that make what I was saying easier? Or are you going to continue taking everyhting so literally?

You ask anyone and we ARE a Christian nation. Just because its not a written anywhere doesn't mean its not true.

No, we are not a Christian nation. We have seperation of chrusch and state. Sometimes that line is crossed, unfortunately, but the majority of the time, the wall remains intact.

We are majority Christian which makes us a Christian nation.

No, no, it doesn't.

And yes I could've been clearer but again, you knew what I was saying because you're not stupid which means your being difficult.

Clearly your previous paragraph implies that you aren't really sure what you meant. So how do you expect any of us to be sure.

And using 9/11 as an excuse was smart because it got the common man behind the government at least for a little while because they wanted revenge.

Do you support such actions?

"We are majority Christian which makes us a Christian nation. It doesn't mean our country is run by the pope or anything it just means that we are a majoritily Christian nation which IS a reason those crazy muslims attacked us."

By the definition of what Christian Nation means, we cannot be for our legal system in not founded in Christian principles. Only a theocracy can have that title, which we are NOT.

You ask anyone and we ARE a Christian nation. Just because its not a written anywhere doesn't mean its not true. We are majority Christian which makes us a Christian nation. It doesn't mean our country is run by the pope or anything it just means that we are a majoritily Christian nation which IS a reason those crazy muslims attacked us.

And yes I could've been clearer but again, you knew what I was saying because you're not stupid which means your being difficult.

Dear jesus..or me..or w/e..where in any of my statements did I come anywhere close to denying that the government used 9/11 to invade Iraq. All I said was "i know they didn't have any part in Iraq". And using 9/11 as an excuse was smart because it got the common man behind the government at least for a little while because they wanted revenge. It didn't last long but it lasted long enough.

Nah don't apologize Milana. They knew what I meant and they were just being difficult.

We weren't being difficult. We just think that words mean something. I say what I mean, not "sort of" what I mean. We have plenty of words in the English language. We have enough to say exactly what you mean and not just approximately what you mean.

And Nathan I know they had nothing to do with 9/11 but after 9/11 we asked Saddam if he was with us or against us and he made his choice, is all i was saying on that.

9/11 was used by the gevernment as a reason to invade Iraq. I hope you aren't denying that well known factoid.

I agree, no one can agree on EVERYTHING!

Well, no one can agree on everything. :)

((TOPIC REKINDLE))

"And Nathan I know they had nothing to do with 9/11 but after 9/11 we asked Saddam if he was with us or against us and he made his choice, is all i was saying on that"

well, like, hmmmm... let's see:
1. we aren't the same religion
2. we disagree on stuff like why stuff happened, like the Iraq war.
3 that is it.

Not all?

Do tell.

yup. a lot of the stuff you say is reasonable. and i agree with most of it that is. NOT ALL of it, but most of it.

:D

i kinda agree with Lauren.

oh.

No, we aren't taking it too seriously. Even if we were 100% Christian, we could never be called a Christian nation, unless we had a theocracy. By definition. :)

Fun fact-non-theist is the 3rd largest group in US. At the rate of growth, we'll take over in about 30 something years. X)

Nah don't apologize Milana. They knew what I meant and they were just being difficult. :P

ok, sorry, my bad. i didn't know

Dear God you people take everything literally...we are a MAJORITY Christian nation and everyone knwos that, especially the radical muslims. And though we do not have a "national" religion, yes we are a Christian nation by majority. I don't really think terrorists give a shit about a technicality.

And Nathan I know they had nothing to do with 9/11 but after 9/11 we asked Saddam if he was with us or against us and he made his choice, is all i was saying on that.

Yeah, we have the right to be whatever religion we want to be!

"the fact were a Christian nation and the fact that we are the epitomy of the western world is why they attacked us. Saying our freedom isn't a reason is stupid."

We are not a Christian nation. Otherwise we would be stoning the little bratty children.

Our freedom, our way of life, the fact were a Christian nation

Last I checked, this was a secular nation. That was established a little over 200 years ago. It isn't a Christian nation.

More misinformation. You may just be listening to John McCain a little too much.

Okay, Dan already said this, but it seems like no one understands/got it.

The Iraq War has/had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no people from Iraq on the planes. There were no people from Iraq who planned the attack. There was no reason to believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

If you don't understand that, read the 9/11 Report. (yeah, right like that will happen)

I guess I just don't understand how anyone in here can simply not know that Iraq and 9/11 are in no way connected. We have known this for a long, long time.

...we didn't necessarily push democracy on Iraq. They welcomed it with open arms...

Um, do you remember the last six years at all? Does the word "insurgency" ring a bell?

That seems to have been their goal on 9/11. We weren't bullying them, they were bullying us and we decided not to take it anymore.

Okay, first of all, you have to realize that when you are talking about 9/11 and the Iraq war, you are talking about two different things, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Second of all, how is this a contradiction? Because terrorists do something that makes it okay for us to do it? I think that's exactly what makes it something that we shouldn't do. My point was that you can't just arbitrarily point your finger at a country and say, "Join us or die," and when they don't join us we're justified in attacking them. Should we attack every country who didn't join our coalition to wage this war?

"Because they hate our freedom? This is asinine. This is Bush administration propaganda. Certainly the attack was unjustified and horrendous, but they had reasons that they thought justified it and they had nothing to do with hating our freedom. They have stated their reasons. They have never said anything about hating our freedom. They hate our hegemony."

Our freedom, our way of life, the fact were a Christian nation and the fact that we are the epitomy of the western world is why they attacked us. Saying our freedom isn't a reason is stupid.

"You don't get to bully people into agreeing with you. First of all, this is a false dichotomy. "With us" or "against us" are not the only choices. Iraq didn't do anything to us. You don't get to invade a country simply because they're "not with us."

When Saddam said he wasn't with us, he knw what he was saying but he said it anyways. He made his decision and thank god he did because it resulted in him being killed and democracy being brought to Iraq which is a GOOD thing.