Iraq: The worst mistake in American History....or was it?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by jammies

but an unwitting lie is no more excusable anyway - when you are talking about starting a war, killing hundreds of thousands of people and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you have to be accountable if the premises you did all this upon turn out to be completely wrong.

How does someone "unwittingly" lie?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by HOZ

How does someone "unwittingly" lie?

Go look at definition #3 here.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by jammies

Go look at definition #3 here.

Again...how do you do it unwittingly?

Lying is conscious thought process.

[jammies]

Not according to the dictionary. Do you see "conscious" in that third definition? It says: "An inaccurate or false statement." So if I make "an inaccurate or false statement", it's a lie regardless of intent.

It's easy to not be a liar - simply don't assert things that aren't certain to be true. Use "I think" or "to the best of my knowledge" or "I believe" instead of unequivocal statements of "fact". Something politicians are usually good at...

[chris lindberg]

nm, wrong thread.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by jammies

Not according to the dictionary. Do you see "conscious" in that third definition? It says: "An inaccurate or false statement." So if I make "an inaccurate or false statement", it's a lie regardless of intent.

It's easy to not be a liar - simply don't assert things that aren't certain to be true. Use "I think" or "to the best of my knowledge" or "I believe" instead of unequivocal statements of "fact". Something politicians are usually good at...

I believe you are miss interpreting or nuancing the intent of the definition.

I guess I should go back to all those tests I had and tell them that I lied and that I truely meant to place the accurate answer in the stead of the false or inaccurate answer I actually gave and therefore should have 100%?

Or did I make mistakes?

[RougeUnderoos]

If I say "I know it is true that my neighbour has a gun in his house" when I don't actually know it is true, and it turns out my neighbour didn't have a gun, was I telling the truth?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I believe you are miss interpreting or nuancing the intent of the definition.

The nuance of a five word definition? There's someone here with difficulty understanding the "nuances" of the definition, but I don't think it's me.

Implicit in giving an answer to a test is that the testee is not sure of all the answers - "lying" doesn't enter into it. In a test, you aren't asserting the truth of your answer, you are asking the testing authority to verify that truth.

RougeUnderoos example, on the other hand, is spot-on - asserting something as FACT when it is not a fact, is lying. You might BELIEVE in your answer, but that doesn't mean that if you are wrong, you aren't lying.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by jammies

The nuance of a five word definition? There's someone here with difficulty understanding the "nuances" of the definition, but I don't think it's me.

Implicit in giving an answer to a test is that the testee is not sure of all the answers - "lying" doesn't enter into it. In a test, you aren't asserting the truth of your answer, you are asking the testing authority to verify that truth.

RougeUnderoos example, on the other hand, is spot-on - asserting something as FACT when it is not a fact, is lying. You might BELIEVE in your answer, but that doesn't mean that if you are wrong, you aren't lying.

No you are nuancing 2 words; a Noun into a verb.

#5 Definition into #3.

Facts were wrong = they are a lie(noun form). It doesn't in any way mean Bush was lying(verb form).

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jammies

The nuance of a five word definition? There's someone here with difficulty understanding the "nuances" of the definition, but I don't think it's me.

Implicit in giving an answer to a test is that the testee is not sure of all the answers - "lying" doesn't enter into it. In a test, you aren't asserting the truth of your answer, you are asking the testing authority to verify that truth.

RougeUnderoos example, on the other hand, is spot-on - asserting something as FACT when it is not a fact, is lying. You might BELIEVE in your answer, but that doesn't mean that if you are wrong, you aren't lying.

Makes sense to me. Plus on a test you're being asked (essentially forced) to provide an answer. Bush was never asked or forced to provide (false) evidence of WMD's... he plunged head-first into that 'assertion of facts' himself.

[worth]

The war in Iraq gave the US government exactly what they wanted. The ability to install additional permanent military bases in the Middle East, along with making a lot of money for friends while bankrupting the US.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by worth

The war in Iraq gave the US government exactly what they wanted. The ability to install additional permanent military bases in the Middle East, along with making a lot of money for friends while bankrupting the US.

No. Honestly, to understand this conflict, you have to understand the ideological morass of the United States. If you don't understand millenarianism, the development of Wilsonian intervention and how these two ascend and descend in influence upon American foreign policy, then you really have nothing to add.

[SportsJunky]

Are you saying worth is wrong, that the U.S. didn't want to establish permanent bases in the Middle East? Are you sure?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Are you saying worth is wrong, that the U.S. didn't want to establish permanent bases in the Middle East? Are you sure?

I think that they did want a power centre, other than Saudi Arabia, in the Middle East. I think that they truly wanted and believed that Iraq would make a smooth transition into a functioning liberal democracy.

I have a problem with the motives people assign the US. Personally, I'm against the war in Iraq, mainly because I believe in democracy, but not in democracy-building. I don't think the US was consciously acting as an imperial power, or were exclusively interested in acquiring resources. American history is weird, unique in a way only Americans can be.

The cultural influences affecting their foreign policy decisions swing between extremes and are ultimately very idealistic.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think that they did want a power centre, other than Saudi Arabia, in the Middle East. I think that they truly wanted and believed that Iraq would make a smooth transition into a functioning liberal democracy.

I have a problem with the motives people assign the US. Personally, I'm against the war in Iraq, mainly because I believe in democracy, but not in democracy-building. I don't think the US was consciously acting as an imperial power, or were exclusively interested in acquiring resources. American history is weird, unique in a way only Americans can be.

The cultural influences affecting their foreign policy decisions swing between extremes and are ultimately very idealistic.

Agreed. American foreign policy history points to an almost unfounded idealism and optimism. It was never about oil and bases, those things were more easily secured by diplomatic (read: bribing corrupt countries) means than by an expensive war... which is the route most countries take anyway. This was a case of genuinely believing they could take out a major threat and build a beacon of democracy in the middle east. This was also a case of believing in evidence that was shaky at best, and non-existent at worst, while allowing enough time for Iraq to remove/destroy anything lingering.

Nowhere in fact or theory could that be thought possible, except in their war room. Western liberal democracy needs to be grown out of its own roots, not implanted.

[CaptainCrunch]

Frankly Iraq is a better base of operations then Saudi Arabia ever was, especially in terms of air power if its needed. Iraq could basically act as a huge aircraft carrier in its dealings with the other radical nations in the area without the political restrictions that would be put in place by the Saudi's.

With Iran minutes away, it would create a quick turnaround if you ever wanted a bombing campaign over downtown Tehran.

Where it all went wrong was in the post war phase. I'm sure the initial plan was to put a massive force of air, ground and armor forces in a relatively peaceful Iraq with the intent of being able to put massive pressure on Iran diplomatically. Unfortunately the U.S. government didn't foresee the massive insurgency that occured that actually tied down U.S assets instead of allowing them to be used in other theatres. In theory I think that the hope was that Iraq would be the middle eastern version of germany during the cold war.

Its a smart strategy that after the initial military campaign was marred by some pretty terrible forecasting and planning.

Add on: I don't think this war was ever about securing oil for the American's, there are cheaper and closer oil reserves that America could secure diplomatically, this was all about putting a hammer where it could be used most effectively.

[Azure]

What good would it do to secure the oil reserves in the first place?

Not only did the US drive up the price of oil by invading Iraq and being actively involved in the middle East, but they disrupted the flow.

Only recently has Iraq been able to increase their production to 2 million barrels per day. Including a 'surge'...of over 250,000 increase, per DAY, in the month of December.

Yeah, I'm sure the US was happy about that....it allowed Iraq to pay off many of the debts they owned to EU, UN, IMF, World Bank and other organization who loaned them money.

Don't see how Cheney and company got rich from 'securing the oil.'

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jammies

The nuance of a five word definition? There's someone here with difficulty understanding the "nuances" of the definition, but I don't think it's me.

Implicit in giving an answer to a test is that the testee is not sure of all the answers - "lying" doesn't enter into it. In a test, you aren't asserting the truth of your answer, you are asking the testing authority to verify that truth.

RougeUnderoos example, on the other hand, is spot-on - asserting something as FACT when it is not a fact, is lying. You might BELIEVE in your answer, but that doesn't mean that if you are wrong, you aren't lying.

Makes perfect sense to me!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No you are nuancing 2 words; a Noun into a verb.

#5 Definition into #3.

Facts were wrong = they are a lie(noun form). It doesn't in any way mean Bush was lying(verb form).

Definition #6 "to express what is false, convey a false impression" is the verb version of definition #3, if you had bothered to look. However, you asked me what I meant by "unwitting lie", which is the NOUN form, and I just ignored your transformation of it into a verb in your question, assuming you'd understand that the noun and the verb are different forms of the same concept so that yes, if I am telling a lie, I am lying. It seems, however, you have an issue with this idea, and I can only wonder if you have a career in politics in your future, as you already seem to have a grasp on the critical skill of defining words as you want them to mean, as opposed to what they actually mean.

You obviously believe a lie must contain some element of conscious deception, but that is your definition, and only one of the commonly accepted definitions. That claim might even fall into the realm of being a false assertation...

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Azure

Which kinda proves the point about 'saving lives' by dropping both bombs.

If Japan wasn't willing to surrender after the firebombings, or the first A-bomb....surely they would have fought to the death had the allied forces invaded.

Well, I agree with that.