Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
You're acting like this is a discussion about opinions. It's really not. It's about conclusions drawn from facts. I've provided many arguments about why Saddam/Iraq was not a thread in 2003. You have provided arguments but I've either demonstrated that they are wrong or they're referring to Iraq in the early 90s which is an entirely different situation than the one we had in 2003.
|
I stated that Saddam continually acted in a defiant manner. Here is a definition of defiance.
Quote:
de·fi·ance Audio Help /dɪˈfaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-fahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a daring or bold resistance to authority or to any opposing force.
2. open disregard; contempt (often fol. by of): defiance of danger; His refusal amounted to defiance.
3. a challenge to meet in combat or in a contest.
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defiance
I saw his acts of defiance as a threat (fact). He did what he did (fact). I interpreted what he did as acts of defiance (fact). Your facts are different. You did not see Saddam's acts as defiance (fact). I understand how those who did not see his actions as acts of defiance, and therefore did not see the threat. However, that does not mean the threat was not real. Assume you agreed that Saddam was acting in a defiant manner. Would you have done anything about it, why or why not? If so, what?
Quote:
|
A lie of omission is still a lie, Ace. He omitted all the evidence that didn't support the picture he wanted to paint both to the American people and to Congress. I don't know why you'd be surprised that people were and are pretty fucking pissed about that.
|
I think the standard you set here is unrealistic. I think based on your standard I could find that everyone would qualify as a lier on virtually every issue they communicate to others on. Are you one of the people who are the cause of ladders needing a sticker saying that using a ladder may result in a fall?