News U.S. is building permanent bases in Iraq

  • Thread starter Thread starter edward
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bases Building
AI Thread Summary
The U.S. military's long-term presence in Iraq is under scrutiny, with reports indicating plans for permanent bases, including significant construction at Balad Air Base and other locations. The discussion highlights a perception that the war is fundamentally about securing oil resources, with critics arguing that the administration misled the public regarding the intentions for a prolonged military occupation. Participants express frustration over the lack of transparency about the true motives behind the invasion and the subsequent establishment of military infrastructure. The conversation also touches on the inconsistency of government statements about troop withdrawal, with some arguing that the administration's actions contradict earlier assurances of a temporary presence. Overall, there is a strong sentiment that the American public was not adequately informed about the long-term implications of the military engagement in Iraq.
  • #51
SOS2008 said:
We only need a track record to conclude that the entire cabal are a pack of liars.
Yes, that's my point: using the logic of 'I'll assume they are lying when it suits my purpose and assume they are telling the truth when it suits my purpose', that just leads you in a circle of self-reinforcing preconceptions.

That's what we have here:

1. Bush said something.
2. Cheney said something.
3. What Bush and Cheney said do not contradict each other.
4. If we assume Cheney was lying and Bush telling the truth, then they contradicted each other and we can call both liars!
5. Save for future evidence that both are liars, supporting the self-reinforcing preconception.
6. Repeat with the next issue.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
russ_watters said:
Yes, that's my point: using the logic of 'I'll assume they are lying when it suits my purpose and assume they are telling the truth when it suits my purpose', that just leads you in a circle of self-reinforcing preconceptions.

That's what we have here:

1. Bush said something.
2. Cheney said something.
3. What Bush and Cheney said do not contradict each other.
4. If we assume Cheney was lying and Bush telling the truth, then they contradicted each other and we can call both liars!
5. Save for future evidence that both are liars, supporting the self-reinforcing preconception.
6. Repeat with the next issue.

Public statement:

Bush: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” [3/8/03] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030308-1.html

Private statement:

“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.” [Bush/Blair meeting, 1/31/03] As reported in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...Q7CzQ5Eznad4zT and elsewhere

Well, who is lying and who is telling the truth here??
Private bush or public bush?? or maybe both are telling the truth and they are in a superposition of states. Until war starts and the wavefunction collapses.. :confused: quantum mechanics weirdness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top