A GREAT week for Bush

[alchemize]

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

If forced to an absolute yes or no answer, I'd say yes. All a matter of perspective, though. It's a qualified yes.

Is a relative of yours dying of cancer less of a tragedy than some unnamed person in Africa that you've never met dying of cancer?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I must now agree with Gaard...Soros does not equate 9/11 with Abu Ghraib...

in fact Abu Ghraib and the U.S. actions in Iraq are in his estimation worse than what the 9/11 thugs did..

"This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself."

I stand corrected...Soros states that U.S. actions are worse, not equal to the 9/11 attrocity.

According to Soros, we are worse than Al Qaeda....

Hehe - I clipped that from my original quote of him😛 I was waiting to use it. Good job - perfect analysis.

CkG

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

Are you equating the wanton and purposeful killing of ~3000 innocent people here with an unverified amount of Iraqi deaths that may or may not have been directly from us during a military operation?

CkG

Yes or no, CkG.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

If forced to an absolute yes or no answer, I'd say yes. All a matter of perspective, though. It's a qualified yes.

Is a relative of yours dying of cancer less of a tragedy than some unnamed person in Africa that you've never met dying of cancer?

Ok, I'll buy that.

Now, zoom out to a world perspective.

Which do you think is worse? The arrogant U.S. being hit hard at home or the arrogant U.S. invading a sovereign nation, unjustly, and killing over 10,000 of its citizens in attempt to "free" them (only to find some of those freed being subjected to an even worse leadership - Fallujah)?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: alchemize

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

If forced to an absolute yes or no answer, I'd say yes. All a matter of perspective, though. It's a qualified yes.

Is a relative of yours dying of cancer less of a tragedy than some unnamed person in Africa that you've never met dying of cancer?

At least your honest, alchy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I must now agree with Gaard...Soros does not equate 9/11 with Abu Ghraib...

in fact Abu Ghraib and the U.S. actions in Iraq are in his estimation worse than what the 9/11 thugs did..

"This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself."

I stand corrected...Soros states that U.S. actions are worse, not equal to the 9/11 attrocity.

According to Soros, we are worse than Al Qaeda....

Hehe - I clipped that from my original quote of him😛 I was waiting to use it. Good job - perfect analysis.

CkG

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

Are you equating the wanton and purposeful killing of ~3000 innocent people here with an unverified amount of Iraqi deaths that may or may not have been directly from us during a military operation?

CkG

Yes or no, CkG.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Are those "~10K" from our bullets? Where those "~10K" truly "innocent"? They weren't shooting at us?

Plus - are you trying to equate the purposeful MURDER of truly innocent people by terrorists to the potential number of potentially innocent Iraqis who died due to collateral damage?

I don't accept your premise as is - I'm asking for clarification as it is a false choice because I don't equate (morally or otherwise) collateral damage with purposeful MURDER.

CkG

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: conjur
And, technically speaking, Soros would be correct.

Are the >10,000 dead Iraqi civilians worth less than the 2,900 dead Americans?

So then in essence you agree with his statements?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

Are you equating the wanton and purposeful killing of ~3000 innocent people here with an unverified amount of Iraqi deaths that may or may not have been directly from us during a military operation?

CkG

Yes or no, CkG.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Are those "~10K" from our bullets? Where those "~10K" truly "innocent"? They weren't shooting at us?

Plus - are you trying to equate the purposeful MURDER of truly innocent people by terrorists to the potential number of potentially innocent Iraqis who died due to collateral damage?

I don't accept your premise as is - I'm asking for clarification as it is a false choice because I don't equate (morally or otherwise) collateral damage with purposeful MURDER.

CkG

What part of civilian do you not get?
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans? Yes, or no.

 

[Gaard]

"This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself."

Are you saying this is incorrect CAD?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

If forced to an absolute yes or no answer, I'd say yes. All a matter of perspective, though. It's a qualified yes.

Is a relative of yours dying of cancer less of a tragedy than some unnamed person in Africa that you've never met dying of cancer?

Ok, I'll buy that.

Now, zoom out to a world perspective.

Which do you think is worse? The arrogant U.S. being hit hard at home or the arrogant U.S. invading a sovereign nation, unjustly, and killing over 10,000 of its citizens in attempt to "free" them (only to find some of those freed being subjected to an even worse leadership - Fallujah)?

I wasn't born on the ocean, free of any ties to any country. I'm a US Citizen. I rank my country and it's interests and citizens above any others. Call it whatever you will, but that's what I believe. I don't have a world perspective. I don't believe anybody does. I don't have scales that I can weigh lives in, and declare one or the other more or less a tragedy. War is tragic, violence is tragic.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

"This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself."

Are you saying this is incorrect CAD?

Is Soros saying the War in Iraq is the same as the War on Terror? Curious...

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

"This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself."

Are you saying this is incorrect CAD?

Is Soros saying the War in Iraq is the same as the War on Terror? Curious...

CkG

It sure looks like he is.

There I answered your question (like I always do), now it's your turn.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

If forced to an absolute yes or no answer, I'd say yes. All a matter of perspective, though. It's a qualified yes.

Is a relative of yours dying of cancer less of a tragedy than some unnamed person in Africa that you've never met dying of cancer?

Ok, I'll buy that.

Now, zoom out to a world perspective.

Which do you think is worse? The arrogant U.S. being hit hard at home or the arrogant U.S. invading a sovereign nation, unjustly, and killing over 10,000 of its citizens in attempt to "free" them (only to find some of those freed being subjected to an even worse leadership - Fallujah)?

I wasn't born on the ocean, free of any ties to any country. I'm a US Citizen. I rank my country and it's interests and citizens above any others. Call it whatever you will, but that's what I believe. I don't have a world perspective. I don't believe anybody does. I don't have scales that I can weigh lives in, and declare one or the other more or less a tragedy. War is tragic, violence is tragic.

And that makes you incapable of trying to see the U.S. from an outside perspective?

Methinks you're trying to dodge an answer you don't want to give that you know deep down is truth.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

Are you equating the wanton and purposeful killing of ~3000 innocent people here with an unverified amount of Iraqi deaths that may or may not have been directly from us during a military operation?

CkG

Yes or no, CkG.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Are those "~10K" from our bullets? Where those "~10K" truly "innocent"? They weren't shooting at us?

Plus - are you trying to equate the purposeful MURDER of truly innocent people by terrorists to the potential number of potentially innocent Iraqis who died due to collateral damage?

I don't accept your premise as is - I'm asking for clarification as it is a false choice because I don't equate (morally or otherwise) collateral damage with purposeful MURDER.

CkG

What part of civilian do you not get?
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans? Yes, or no.

I don't buy your premise - nor do I buy their "methodology" , their "rationale", nor their inclusion of those we didn't kill or those who may not have been "innocent civilians".

Do you equate the purposeful MURDER of innocent people by terrorists with collateral damage in a military WAR?

CkG

 

[alchemize]

And that makes you incapable of trying to see the U.S. from an outside perspective?

Methinks you're trying to dodge an answer you don't want to give that you know deep down is truth.

I didn't say I'm incapable of seeing the US from an outside perspective. I'm basically saying, my perspective is the only one that matters to me. 9/11 was the most horrid tragedy I've ever personally experienced.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

Are you equating the wanton and purposeful killing of ~3000 innocent people here with an unverified amount of Iraqi deaths that may or may not have been directly from us during a military operation?

CkG

Yes or no, CkG.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Are those "~10K" from our bullets? Where those "~10K" truly "innocent"? They weren't shooting at us?

Plus - are you trying to equate the purposeful MURDER of truly innocent people by terrorists to the potential number of potentially innocent Iraqis who died due to collateral damage?

I don't accept your premise as is - I'm asking for clarification as it is a false choice because I don't equate (morally or otherwise) collateral damage with purposeful MURDER.

CkG

What part of civilian do you not get?
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm

So, you think over 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians is less a tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans? Yes, or no.

I don't buy your premise - nor do I buy their "methodology" , their "rationale", nor their inclusion of those we didn't kill or those who may not have been "innocent civilians".

Do you equate the purposeful MURDER of innocent people by terrorists with collateral damage in a military WAR?

CkG

Answer the fvcking question, CkG:

Do you consider >10,000 dead Iraqi civilians a lesser tragedy than 2,900 dead Americans?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

And that makes you incapable of trying to see the U.S. from an outside perspective?

Methinks you're trying to dodge an answer you don't want to give that you know deep down is truth.

I didn't say I'm incapable of seeing the US from an outside perspective. I'm basically saying, my perspective is the only one that matters to me. 9/11 was the most horrid tragedy I've ever personally experienced.

Indulge me for a moment.

Now, zoom out to a world perspective.

Which do you think is worse? The arrogant U.S. being hit hard at home or the arrogant U.S. invading a sovereign nation, unjustly, and killing over 10,000 of its citizens in attempt to "free" them (only to find some of those freed being subjected to an even worse leadership - Fallujah)?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

"This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself."

Are you saying this is incorrect CAD?

Is Soros saying the War in Iraq is the same as the War on Terror? Curious...

CkG

It sure looks like he is.

There I answered your question (like I always do), now it's your turn.

Yes, it is incorrect because it seems to suggest an equvilancy I don't buy into.

Interesting though that Soros can equate Iraq with the War on Terror but Bush or the rest of us get jumped for doing so😉

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

"This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself."

Are you saying this is incorrect CAD?

Is Soros saying the War in Iraq is the same as the War on Terror? Curious...

CkG

It sure looks like he is.

There I answered your question (like I always do), now it's your turn.

Yes, it is incorrect because it seems to suggest an equvilancy I don't buy into.

Interesting though that Soros can equate Iraq with the War on Terror but Bush or the rest of us get jumped for doing so😉

CkG

Oh boy, what a predicament. You are obviously in need of comprehension help, and I feel like giving it to you, but I don't want Shiner jumping my sh!t for attacking you because I don't see your point of view.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

And that makes you incapable of trying to see the U.S. from an outside perspective?

Methinks you're trying to dodge an answer you don't want to give that you know deep down is truth.

I didn't say I'm incapable of seeing the US from an outside perspective. I'm basically saying, my perspective is the only one that matters to me. 9/11 was the most horrid tragedy I've ever personally experienced.

Indulge me for a moment.

Now, zoom out to a world perspective.

Which do you think is worse? The arrogant U.S. being hit hard at home or the arrogant U.S. invading a sovereign nation, unjustly, and killing over 10,000 of its citizens in attempt to "free" them (only to find some of those freed being subjected to an even worse leadership - Fallujah)?

Define for me a world perspective. I don't think a world perspective would include analysis of arrogance, soverignity, justice or unjustice, or better or worse leadership.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

And that makes you incapable of trying to see the U.S. from an outside perspective?

Methinks you're trying to dodge an answer you don't want to give that you know deep down is truth.

I didn't say I'm incapable of seeing the US from an outside perspective. I'm basically saying, my perspective is the only one that matters to me. 9/11 was the most horrid tragedy I've ever personally experienced.

Indulge me for a moment.

Now, zoom out to a world perspective.

Which do you think is worse? The arrogant U.S. being hit hard at home or the arrogant U.S. invading a sovereign nation, unjustly, and killing over 10,000 of its citizens in attempt to "free" them (only to find some of those freed being subjected to an even worse leadership - Fallujah)?

Define for me a world perspective. I don't think a world perspective would include analysis of arrogance, soverignity, justice or unjustice, or better or worse leadership.

Can I assume you've never traveled outside the borders of the U.S.?

Can I assume you're uninformed to the vast amount of anti-U.S. sentiment evident in the world today?

 

[conjur]

Hmmm...CkG and alchemize keep trying to nuance their way out of answering very simple questions.

It's the truth that they fear.

 

[heartsurgeon]

how on earth do you come up with "innocent" or "civilians", much less a number? Heck that flakey site that purports to ennumerate the number of "civilian deaths" "caused" by the U.S...did you read their definition of what supposedly counts as a "innocent civilian death"?

In the current occupation phase this database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

so if iraqis kill iraqis it's our fault....
if an iraqi dies of an heart attach, it's our fault
if an itaqi falls down drunk and dies, its our fault?
this is ludacrous.....

with this logic, you would have to condemn the use of the nuclear bombs on Japan, which caused i believe 300,000 total civilian deaths, but ended the war and saved american and allied lives.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

And that makes you incapable of trying to see the U.S. from an outside perspective?

Methinks you're trying to dodge an answer you don't want to give that you know deep down is truth.

I didn't say I'm incapable of seeing the US from an outside perspective. I'm basically saying, my perspective is the only one that matters to me. 9/11 was the most horrid tragedy I've ever personally experienced.

Indulge me for a moment.

Now, zoom out to a world perspective.

Which do you think is worse? The arrogant U.S. being hit hard at home or the arrogant U.S. invading a sovereign nation, unjustly, and killing over 10,000 of its citizens in attempt to "free" them (only to find some of those freed being subjected to an even worse leadership - Fallujah)?

Define for me a world perspective. I don't think a world perspective would include analysis of arrogance, soverignity, justice or unjustice, or better or worse leadership.

Can I assume you've never traveled outside the borders of the U.S.?

Can I assume you're uninformed to the vast amount of anti-U.S. sentiment evident in the world today?

Your acting like this is something new....

I wonder if the french know what the world thinks of them....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

"This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself."

Are you saying this is incorrect CAD?

Is Soros saying the War in Iraq is the same as the War on Terror? Curious...

CkG

It sure looks like he is.

There I answered your question (like I always do), now it's your turn.

Yes, it is incorrect because it seems to suggest an equvilancy I don't buy into.

Interesting though that Soros can equate Iraq with the War on Terror but Bush or the rest of us get jumped for doing so😉

CkG

Oh boy, what a predicament. You are obviously in need of comprehension help, and I feel like giving it to you, but I don't want Shiner jumping my sh!t for attacking you because I don't see your point of view.

comprehension? No, I don't need any help with that - thanks.

Would you like for me to phrase my answer a different way? Or will you not accept that one either?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Hmmm...CkG and alchemize keep trying to nuance their way out of answering very simple questions.

It's the truth that they fear.

No - your question is flawed. I gave you plenty of opportunities to clarify or change your question. Your premise is out of whack and I won't accept it.

Will you answer my question?

CkG