Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
I think you put up some pretty solid arguments there Torog. Good article overal:thumbsup:.
Personally, while the examples of liberal dishonesty are for the most part accurate, I don't believe conservatives are any less prone to dishonesty, but merely dishonest in a different fassion. In fact "dishonest" may not even be the accurate term (though it certainly applies at times), but spreading certain points of ignorance as fact. Generally, the main informational fault I find wih the right is that once something is repeated enough times, it becomes established fact.

A prime example of this was during the 2004 presidential elections. During a debate, I watched John Kerry live as he said "I will hunt the terrorists down and kill them. I'll reduce terrorism to a point where it's nothing more than a nuicance."
From that point on, Bush kept repeating in his speaches the blatant lie "John Kerry referred to terrorism as a, quote 'nuisance'!". Just by picking out one word he changed the whole meaning and completely, intentionally distorted what the opposition said. Before we knew it, this became a widely-known "fact".

Also I'm curious about your assertion that Iraq was the main sponsor of Palestinian terrorists. Last I heard, the main sponsors of Palestinian terrorism were Iran, Lebanon, and Syria (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are suspects).

As for the assertion that Bush didn't lie, I'm inclined to agree with you on that. I do, however, believe that Bush blundered in his handling of the situation. While Bush didn't lie, both the CIA and MI6 were proven to have lied. The uranian from Africa was a complete fabrication. So were the mobile chemical weapons factories. I don't blame Bush for believing his intelligence advisors, but where he blundered was his pre-emptrive invasion of Iraq. The man did it in the middle of inspections, in the middle of all the debates, and against the wishes of the UN and international community. Had he waited to investigate the situation and carefully weigh the facts, international support would have been much bigger and America wouldn't be in the mess that is Iraq today.

I would like to state my personal belief that Iraq was a strategic blunder:
- They've tied up their ground forces in a war that didn't need to be fought.

- They've wasted hundreds of billions of dollars that will be sorely needed for greater threats.

- They've diverted massive resources, funds, and lives that are urgently needed for defence against nations that actually are an imminent threat.

- They've ruined their international credibility which will hinder future military endeavors.

- They've ruined their credibility with their own people, who will be reluctant to support yet another conflict after already being war-weary from an unpopular war.

- By invading with a huge lack of justification and proof of Saddam's WMD's, as well as being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands Iraqi civilians, Bush has done more for the AlQaeda recruitment efforts than Bin Laden ever could have accomplished. Iraq hasn't made us safer, it's inreased the threat. The CIA's own estimates in 2004 said that AlQaeda's recruitment had jumped by 18,000 new members since America invaded Iraq.
Don't kid yourself, these aren't "terrorists being flushed out". These are angry young men who watched their friends and family be blown to bits. Had a nation invaded America and been killed your friends and family, otherwise peaceful American's would undoubtedly take up arms against that nation too. The Iraq invasion is the best thing that could have happened to AlQaeda; it's justified their efforts in the eyes of Arab youth.

But, getting back to the original post, you once again make some strong arguments my good right-wing stoner. I'm also very happy to see that you understand that leftists of today do not, for the most part, represent the philosophy of Classical Liberalism (a philosophy I agree with more than others). Most conservatives don't seem to understand this, and label "liberal" a dirty word in and of itself.
But then, most conservatives today don't represent classical conservatism. It's a shame how few people today understand the original ideology they claim to represent.

Peace and hapiness to you Torog.
Howdy Gandalf,

It could be that yer right about the Right,but from where I sit and from what I've seen in 48 years of living,honesty is considered a weakness by the liberal mind-set,as the liberal mind-set,quite often believes that the means justify the ends..which is further reinforced by the perception on the part of the liberal,that they know better than others,when it comes to solving problems..humility,is also considered a weakness as well.

In regards to yer John Kerry example,I'm sure that folks may have indeed believed such to be a fact,but it was Kerry saying the he would allow a place in the world for some terrorism,that upset me the most-because I believe that we should not allow a place for terrorism. There should be zero tolerance for terrorism and every country should work together to give them no safe harbor.

Saddam payed the families of Palestinian homicide bombers,25,000 $,for each martyr..and he probably did so,with money from the oil-for-food program,instead of feeding his own people. Iran and Syria,among others,have always supported terrorism there and always will,till we topple their rogue regimes.

I see going into Iraq,as being good strategically,because we needed to topple saddam and sons and git closer to Iran and Syria and the Straits of Hormuz and other vital oil facilities.

Also,don't forget-that Israel is our ally and is under constant threat of attack and we have obligations to them strategically..plus,we want to preserve the democracy of Israel as opposed to the rogue regimes that surround Israel.

At least the old school democrats,passed on good values to their children,the new democrats believe that children should be treated like adults and be allowed to form their own values.

Have a good one ...