Quote Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
Errr.... Perjury is perjury, and that's a crime. Lie is a lie. Noone is going to prosecute you for a lie, unless it's under oath. Then it's perjury. You don't see a difference?

The original point was that since noone convicted US administration officials of lying, then they had not lyed.
My answer was that, since US administration is not talking under oath, it's not a crime to lie, they can't be prosecuted for that.
You stated you could not be prosecuted for a lie - that is incorrect you can.

Saying that there is no lie, because there is no conviction is a serious misunderstanding. It's odd: I suspect you know that, so I wonder why you make obviously wrong statement.
That is not what I stated - I said there is no evidence of a lie, just misinformed, incorrect, or proven to be wrong. Provide evidence of a lie - before making accusations of it.

If all the press conferences were under oath, then yes, it would be a lot of fun, and I guess we would see a lot more prosecution
Again you would have to prove that they lied - a hard thing to do.

Had you been listening back then... I guess it was easier to believe that all war opponents were fitting the stereotypes you built for them.
I listened to them - and like I stated already the majority stated what I said they did.

The danger with caricaturing the people you oppose is that you end up believing the caricature, and not the actual arguments.
Well when its done in an arguement by one side - I believe its perfectly acceptable to do it back. If one doesn't like it being done in return - one should not attempt to do so themselves.

I would certainly not excuse them all. The underlying point that you have so obviously missed is that this nobility seems to be very conveniently targetted.
We get noble in Iraq, but not with Russia or China. That's a very convenient kind of nobility. Noble with the weak, bargaining with the strong. Hypocrisy?
And in this you would be incorrect. Iraq was a consistent issue since 1991. A war was fought in 1991 where Iraq promised to abide by a cease fire - which it failed to do. China and Russia are not under the same conditions - neither is North Korea, they have yet to violate the conditions of thier cease fire with the United States and South Korea. It seems your now attempting to lump them all together. Each nation mentioned have seperate situations then that of Iraq. Again Iraq failed to abide by a cease fire signed by both warring parties. No other nation falls within that same situation no matter how much some would like to try to make it so.

Would I allow those dictatorship to exist? Short of other acceptable alternatives, yes. War is rarely an acceptable alternative.
War is the last resort. Just like it was with Iraq. 12 years of failed diplomacy is often overlook in the anti-war crowd. Care to guess how many times 1st Cavarly Division deployed in the 90's to Kuwait to provide security and threat to Iraq? I will give you a guess its more then one.

Do I excuse them? No.
Well that is a good thing then.

War is sometimes necessary. I don't think it was necessary in that case, even if Saddam was a treacherous bastard. The current situation is an expensive price to pay to punish someone who was not honoring all and every ceasefire conditions.

Louis,
Again we differ in opinion.