Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! (Page 7)

2005-11-09 8:44 AM

in reply to: #281200

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ASA22 - 2005-11-09 7:19 AM

coredump - 2005-11-09 7:50 AM

ASA22 - 2005-11-07 8:11 PM [...] from my perspective the Inspections were a total bust.

If they were a bust, how come Iraq didn't have anything? Oh right, facts don't really matter, it's enough just to claim. Besides, there are many countries that have disobeyed UN resolutions and inspections. *cough*NorthKorea*cough* India and Pakistan have undertaken nuclear programs. Also, everything you state happend in the early to mid-1990's. If you haven't checked recently, it's almost 2006.

You carry on believing we were justified, and I'll carry on believing we went on falsified and overblown "intelligence" ( and I use that term loosely ) and needlessly endangered our troops ( including my brother ).

-C

Should the free countries of the world have intervened in Uganda in the 1970's? Should the free countries of the world have intervened in Cambodia in the late 1970's? Should the free countries of the world have intervened in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's?I keep hearing the "Bush lied" card over and over and over. But none of you have stated under what circumstances you believe that the US was or would have been justified in military action in Iraq? If there is another legitimate reason for the war then the steam is taken out of the political hot button statement of "Bush Lied".I'm tired of the North Korea/Pakistan arguement. It's a Red Herring used by the anti-Bush side. For that arguement to hold water we would have to believe that every international situation is similar and should be dealt with in an identical manner. Clearly that is not the case. The situation of the Korean penensula is clearly different than that in Iraq. 1) The Koreans have a delivery system that can reach both South Korea and Japan. 2) The Chinese wouldn't be too happy with western military invovlement in their back yard. While the relationship between China and North Korea has certainly soured since 1950, don't think that Chinese responce isn't an issue in the North Korean situation. (Although historically it was Stalin that had more to do with the Korean war than China) 3) The sabbre rattling of N. Korea has been seen before. They rattle their nuclear sabbres in an attempt to get economic concesions from the west. The last time it was done had to do with lifting a fuel oil embargo. My personal perspective is that the US, and other free societies, have a duty to oppose murderous regimes. That opposition can take many forms, one of them is military intervention.

Where are the weapons then? Still hidden somewhere in the desert? If Iraq was truly in violation ( and not just bluffing/posturing ), then why have we found exactly zero WMDs?

BTW, would you happen to know the figure of how many Iraqi civilians have died in the subsequent military action since we went in?

-C

2005-11-09 8:53 AM

in reply to: #281241

Expert

707

Kansas

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Most dem's are on record years prior to the Iraq war telling the world that S.H. has nuke's or some sort WMD.... so what happen... did S.H. wake up one day and chose world peace? Did the dem's lie?

BTW- How many Kurd's died at the hand of S.H. ?

coredump - 2005-11-09 8:44 AM

ASA22 - 2005-11-09 7:19 AM

coredump - 2005-11-09 7:50 AM

ASA22 - 2005-11-07 8:11 PM [...] from my perspective the Inspections were a total bust.

Brett

2005-11-09 8:53 AM

in reply to: #281237

Elite

2421

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

run4yrlif - 2005-11-09 7:41 AM

Moral relativism: I just asked (again) who you'd rather have for a president, No one's answered that question yet. I also said I didn't say Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, but if it's good enough for our guy, why isn't it good enough for your guy? And I also said...implied, at least, that it was political. I said if Clinton had a democratic congress, he wouldn't have been impeached. And since Bush has a republican congress, there's no way he will be impeached.

Um, I don't see where in the post that I read that you asked that. But if I had to venture a guess, I'd say 99% of the Republicans would say Bush and 99% of the Democrats will say Clinton. And I agree 100% that it's political. Bush is most likely not facing impeachment for the exact same reason that Clinton wasn't removed: partisan politics.

What I understood you to say was:

Which is worse, lying about where you put your penis, or lying about the justification for sending soldiers to their deaths.

Which I said was moral relativism. If one lie is bad, terrible, inexcuseable, etc, then they both are.

bts

Brett

2005-11-09 8:53 AM

in reply to: #281237

Elite

2421

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

EDIT - Double Post.

Edited by Brett 2005-11-09 8:54 AM

run4yrlif

2005-11-09 8:59 AM

in reply to: #281254

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Brett - 2005-11-09 8:53 AMUm, I don't see where in the post that I read that you asked that.

Yeah, good point. I said "who would you rather..." the first time, somewhere back on page one or two of the thread...

Brett

2005-11-09 9:05 AM

in reply to: #278038

Elite

2421

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Number of Civilian Casualties caused by the invasion (depending on the political leanings of the organization sponsored to study the information):

Between 25 and 100k.

Number of (preventable) deaths caused by Saddam Hussein and his charming regime (depending on the political affiliation of who you ask):

Between 290K ranging all the way up to well over 1 Million. And that's not including the Iran-Iraq war.

bts

2005-11-09 9:12 AM

in reply to: #281253

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ott13979 - 2005-11-09 7:53 AM

Most dem's are on record years prior to the Iraq war telling the world that S.H. has nuke's or some sort WMD.... so what happen... did S.H. wake up one day and chose world peace? Did the dem's lie?

BTW- How many Kurd's died at the hand of S.H. ?

Good, glad we agree that anyone who claimed Iraq had nuclear capabilities when we went in is a liar ( Dem or Repub ).

The number of Kurds who died under his regime is in the 100's of thousands. I don't know how many he personally killed.

To answer my question ( which you dodged ). The US led coalition is believed to have killed in the 10's of thousands ( possibly 100,000 or more ).

Saddam spent 25 years to reach those numbers.

-C

Edited by coredump 2005-11-09 9:14 AM

2005-11-09 9:20 AM

in reply to: #281283

Expert

707

Kansas

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Coredum, why would Dem's lie? Then why would they (Dem's) tell the world Bush is a liar? Help me understand...

Didn't "dodge".... Brett answerd that one... thanks Brett

coredump - 2005-11-09 9:12 AM

ott13979 - 2005-11-09 7:53 AM

Most dem's are on record years prior to the Iraq war telling the world that S.H. has nuke's or some sort WMD.... so what happen... did S.H. wake up one day and chose world peace? Did the dem's lie?

BTW- How many Kurd's died at the hand of S.H. ?

Good, glad we agree that anyone who claimed Iraq had nuclear capabilities when we went in is a liar ( Dem or Repub ).

The number of Kurds who died under his regime is in the 100's of thousands. I don't know how many he personally killed.

To answer my question ( which you dodged ). The US led coalition is believed to have killed in the 10's of thousands ( possibly 100,000 or more ).

Saddam spent 25 years to reach those numbers.

-C

2005-11-09 9:24 AM

in reply to: #281292

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ott13979 - 2005-11-09 8:20 AM

Coredum, why would Dem's lie? Then why would they (Dem's) tell the world Bush is a liar? Help me understand...

Didn't "dodge".... Brett answerd that one... thanks Brett

Brett didn't dodge, you did. Thanks Brett.

Main Entry: ³lie
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

As to why Bush or anyone else lied, you'll want to ask them for their reasons.

-C

run4yrlif

2005-11-09 9:27 AM

in reply to: #281300

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

coredump - 2005-11-09 9:24 AM

As to why Bush or anyone else lied, you'll want to ask them for their reasons.

-C

People in general usually lie for one of a couple of reasons: to get what they want or to cover up something they're ashamed of. Or they're just pathological.

2005-11-09 9:30 AM

in reply to: #281283

Expert

707

Kansas

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

So if Saddam spent 50 years killing 300,000 Kurd's would that make you feel better? If you do the math... heck that's only 6000 a year... not bad

Saddam spent 25 years to reach those numbers.

-C

Brock Samson

2005-11-09 9:33 AM

in reply to: #281283

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

coredump - 2005-11-09 9:12 AM

ott13979 - 2005-11-09 7:53 AM

Most dem's are on record years prior to the Iraq war telling the world that S.H. has nuke's or some sort WMD.... so what happen... did S.H. wake up one day and chose world peace? Did the dem's lie?

BTW- How many Kurd's died at the hand of S.H. ?

Good, glad we agree that anyone who claimed Iraq had nuclear capabilities when we went in is a liar ( Dem or Repub ).

The number of Kurds who died under his regime is in the 100's of thousands. I don't know how many he personally killed.

To answer my question ( which you dodged ). The US led coalition is believed to have killed in the 10's of thousands ( possibly 100,000 or more ).

Saddam spent 25 years to reach those numbers.

-C

I'm not doubting your figure of 100,000 Iraqie casualties, but I would like to see where you got that number. Is it civilians or does it include combatants? Where is the report from the UN, red cross, anone substantiating that figure. It seems highly inflated to me. Before you set out shocking numbers like that I'd like to see the authority for the proposition.

And as far as where are the WMD's, November 22, 2002, 11 banned warheads designed to carry biological/chemical agents are discovered by UN Inspectors. Note the date, this is AFTER UN resolution 1441, and AFTER 11 years of UN resolutions. And after Iraq in a 12,000 page document to the UN says they have FULLY complied with ALL UN weapons sanctions. Additionally, while no WMD's were found component parts for short range banned missle systems were found as recently as 2002. (Russian made by the way).

Remember, as a condition of the 1991 cease fire agreement Iraq had to unconditionally comply with the cease fire agreement. They didn't have 11 years to comply. Comliance was required immediately. In 1998 Iraq expelled UN weapons inspectors for a period of 3 years. Why expell the weapons inspectors if there are no WMD's. What occurred in those 3 years.
Additionally, as early as 1996 the US administration attempted to get approval for military action, only to be stopped by the UN Security Counsel (Rememebr Russia a permenent member, also remember the UN's own 1995 report). Meaning in 1996 we wanted to invade Iraq, was that wrong? So to say that it is just the Bush administration that wanted war with Iraq, ignores history.

Again, Chris, under what circumstances do you believe that the U.S. is justified in military action? It's a question that has never been answered.

And by the above definitions of "lie" ask yourself why the Iraq government spent 11 years keeping inspectors out of the country if they really didn't have WMD.

Edited by ASA22 2005-11-09 9:35 AM

2005-11-09 9:34 AM

in reply to: #281313

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ott13979 - 2005-11-09 8:30 AM

So if Saddam spent 50 years killing 300,000 Kurd's would that make you feel better? If you do the math... heck that's only 6000 a year... not bad

Saddam spent 25 years to reach those numbers.

-C

You apparently missed the point, so I'll make it clearer. The number of civilian deaths per year has not markedly improved since we invaded. Conservative esitmates are 25,000 civlian deaths since we came in. Other estimates range even higher ( more than 100,000 ).

-C

2005-11-09 9:36 AM

in reply to: #281318

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ASA22 - 2005-11-09 8:33 AM Again, Chris, under what circumstances do you believe that the U.S. is justified in military action? It's a question that has never been answered.

Uhm, did you even read what I wrote above? Answered at least twice now.

I said that military intervention is a last resort, to be used when all other methods have been exhausted.

-C

2005-11-09 9:42 AM

in reply to: #281318

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ASA22 - 2005-11-09 8:33 AM I'm not doubting your figure of 100,000 Iraqie casualties, but I would like to see where you got that number. Is it civilians or does it include combatants? Where is the report from the UN, red cross, anone substantiating that figure. It seems highly inflated to me. Before you set out shocking numbers like that I'd like to see the authority for the proposition.

A study published in The Lancet ( British medical journal ). Reported in many papers/media outlets in the US and elsewhere. Admittedly, this is one of the highest reports, but also one of the most recent.

And as far as where are the WMD's, November 22, 2002, 11 banned warheads designed to carry biological/chemical agents are discovered by UN Inspectors. Note the date, this is AFTER UN resolution 1441, and AFTER 11 years of UN resolutions. And after Iraq in a 12,000 page document to the UN says they have FULLY complied with ALL UN weapons sanctions. Additionally, while no WMD's were found component parts for short range banned missle systems were found as recently as 2002. (Russian made by the way).

Since they *were* found by the inspectors, I'd say the inspections were working, wouldn't you?

You continue to point out stuff that was found *before* we went it. Nothing that was found after. Why is that?

-C

2005-11-09 9:55 AM

in reply to: #281323

Expert

707

Kansas

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

I would agree civilian death rate hasn't changed... but the bigger picture says that one day those number will not be so high... the alternative is that if we leave S.D. in power then those numbers would continue to grow...

Just curious

Is there a difference between being murdered by a ruthless dictator or just a causality of war?

coredump - 2005-11-09 9:34 AM

ott13979 - 2005-11-09 8:30 AM

So if Saddam spent 50 years killing 300,000 Kurd's would that make you feel better? If you do the math... heck that's only 6000 a year... not bad

Saddam spent 25 years to reach those numbers.

-C

Brock Samson

2005-11-09 10:07 AM

in reply to: #281332

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

Actually, the missles were found after the United states had sent troops to the region.

I agree military action should always be a last resort. But by saying this it doesn't add anything to your indication of when military intervention is warranted. What is or would have been a "last reort" in the case of Iraq? I hear the last resort oppinion banded about all the time, it's something that has no actual application unless what the "last resort" we are talking about is defined. So what would be the last resort?

I guess you and I differ in what constitutes a "last resort". If past expereince with Iraq is any indication of their veracity in complying with the UN sanctions, we would have been in for another 11 years, of stonewalling, excuses, threats against inspectors, expelling of inspectors. You're right everytime the inspectors were allowed in Iraq they found something, warheads, missle parts, banned short range missles. The problem is that the inspectors were never allowed full access to Iraq fascilities in 11 years, despite Iraq's legal requirment under the ceasefire agreement to allow unconditional access. They were expelled for 3 years!!!

Iraq's last chance was when the cease fire agreement was signed. Despite what has been asserted Iraq NEVER complied with the ceasefire agreement. Never!

When is enough enough? For me the last resort came when they expelled UN inspectors in 1998.

What would have been the "last resort" for you. Perhaps then we can debate what appears to be the central issue between us. I'm not trying to be disparaging in this reply, if I am, I apologize. I just don't find the idea "last resort" helpful without a clear indication of what you view that term to mean. I agree the military option should always be used only as a last resort, I'm sure even self proclaimed Hawks would agree. The battle ground is where is the line for last resort.

2005-11-09 10:09 AM

in reply to: #281350

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ott13979 - 2005-11-09 8:55 AM

It was a lot lower already in the years before we went in. By all accounts, the civilian death rate went up after we went in.

-C

Brock Samson

2005-11-09 10:18 AM

in reply to: #281332

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

And by the way, just read the Lancet report and some of the reports cited therin, as well as estimates from other goups; the figures of actual civilian casualties isn't 100,000; it's 10,000 -37,000. It's based on a "small sampling of only 1000 households." Additionally, Iraq Body Count a civilian peace activist groupd puts the civilian death toll at around 15,000.

The Lancet report looked at birth and death rates prior to US invasion against birth
/death rates after the US invasion in a sampling of only 1000 households, and found a decline in birth rates and increase in death rates. The conclusion was that the risk of death from "any source" was 2.5 times higher after the US invasion than before. Of course if data from Fallujah is elliminated, the scene of some of the heaviest fighting, the figure drops to 1.5 times. The report concludes that based upon their sampling 100,000 "excess" deaths have occured since 2003. This is not actual counts, it's based upon what the report itself says is a "small sampling".

2005-11-09 10:19 AM

in reply to: #281368

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ASA22 - 2005-11-09 9:07 AMActually, the missles were found after the United states had sent troops to the region.

Sent troops to region != invading.

I agree military action should always be a last resort. But by saying this it doesn't add anything to your indication of when military intervention is warranted. What is or would have been a "last reort" in the case of Iraq?

As you helpfully point out, the inspectors were finding things. Albeit, not a whole lot. ( 11 *empty* shells/warheads ). So I would say that the inspections were working at that point. Their job is to find things and to keep the pressure on. The inspectors themselves wanted more time to finish their job. We didn't let them. To me, that clearly means that we hadn't reached our option of last resort.

Moving troops to the region applied pressure, which worked in forcing Saddam to move into compliance. The next step of moving forces into battle against Saddam was not necessary to accomplishing the mission of forcing him to comply with inspections, as he was already doing so. The threat of force in this case was sufficient, the actual use of force was not needed.

As costly as moving troops into place in the region and not using them would be, the cost we are bearing now as a result of using them ( both humanitarian and monetary ), is in my opinion, far greater.

And I have to get to work now, so this is my last post in this thread, I think.

-C

2005-11-09 10:24 AM

in reply to: #281372

Expert

707

Kansas

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

wow... I'm going to leave this conversation... again

one for the road... under that logic BTK killer really slacked off in his later years, so he shouldn't go to jail.. right?

ha ha it was fun coredump

coredump - 2005-11-09 10:09 AM

ott13979 - 2005-11-09 8:55 AM

It was a lot lower already in the years before we went in. By all accounts, the civilian death rate went up after we went in.

-C

2005-11-09 10:24 AM

in reply to: #281384

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!

ASA22 - 2005-11-09 9:18 AMAnd by the way, just read the Lancet report and some of the reports cited therin, as well as estimates from other goups; the figures of actual civilian casualties isn't 100,000; it's 10,000 -37,000. It's based on a "small sampling of only 1000 households." Additionally, Iraq Body Count a civilian peace activist groupd puts the civilian death toll at around 15,000.The Lancet report looked at birth and death rates prior to US invasion against birth /death rates after the US invasion in a sampling of only 1000 households, and found a decline in birth rates and increase in death rates. The conclusion was that the risk of death from "any source" was 2.5 times higher after the US invasion than before. Of course if data from Fallujah is elliminated, the scene of some of the heaviest fighting, the figure drops to 1.5 times. The report concludes that based upon their sampling 100,000 "excess" deaths have occured since 2003. This is not actual counts, it's based upon what the report itself says is a "small sampling".

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

"Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey isconsidered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used tocalculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s, AP reported.

Anexpert on study methods who was not involved with the research, saidthe approach the scientists took was a reasonable one to investigatethe Iraq death toll.

But Richard Peto, who is professor ofmedical statistics at Oxford University, cautioned AP the researchersmay have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of thedeath toll across Iraq."

It may be inflated, it may not be. It's hard to say, but the methods used are not inaccurate, and *are* accepted as valid methods.

-C