A GREAT week for Bush

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

"More innocent lives have been lost in the WoT than were lost in the 9/11 attacks."

agree or disagree?

Why am I not suprised this drivel came from her She is just another one of those people who never accept that they are wrong(or even could possibly be wrong).

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Answer my question first. I clarified the question with detail behind the Iraqi deaths. You just continue to dodge and evad.

Typical.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

"More innocent lives have been lost in the WoT than were lost in the 9/11 attacks."

agree or disagree?

Why am I not suprised this drivel came from her She is just another one of those people who never accept that they are wrong(or even could possibly be wrong).

I would agree with the statement that: More lives have been lost in the WoT than were lost in the 9/11 attacks. Now to make an equivalency (moral or otherwise) argument with them wouldn't be acceptable IMO.🙂

Oh, and that quote still doesn't work😉

CkG

 

[alchemize]

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?

I spent 8 weeks of my senior year in switzerland, france, and belgium (mostly France). I've been to Mexico, several islands in the carribbean, and several provinces in Canada.

I'm well aware of the vast amount of anti-US sentiment in the world today. You are asking me to take a world perspective. Does this world perspective include the US's perspective or not? How much is France's perspective worth? How much is Saudi Arabia, and Israel's worth? My point is, there is no world perspective. There are only individual perspectives.


Here, I'll make this a little easier for you, since this is what you are looking for.

From a calculator's perspective, if X = the amount of deaths in 9/11, and y = the amount of deaths in iraq, and z = the level of tragedy, then x < y, therefore z is higher with y.

But we don't measure lives by the abacus. We measure them by what they mean to us. How many innocents would I sacrifice to save my family? How many would you? Zero? >1? Would you have taken an innocent life to save 2,900 on 9/11? Would you take your own life?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

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?

I spent 8 weeks of my senior year in switzerland, france, and belgium (mostly France). I've been to Mexico, several islands in the carribbean, and several provinces in Canada.

I'm well aware of the vast amount of anti-US sentiment in the world today. You are asking me to take a world perspective. Does this world perspective include the US's perspective or not? How much is France's perspective worth? How much is Saudi Arabia, and Israel's worth? My point is, there is no world perspective. There are only individual perspectives.


Here, I'll make this a little easier for you, since this is what you are looking for.

From a calculator's perspective, if X = the amount of deaths in 9/11, and y = the amount of deaths in iraq, and z = the level of tragedy, then x < y, therefore z is higher with y.

But we don't measure lives by the abacus. We measure them by what they mean to us. How many innocents would I sacrifice to save my family? How many would you? Zero? >1? Would you have taken an innocent life to save 2,900 on 9/11? Would you take your own life?

Just answer the question.

From a world perspective (yes, minus the U.S.) are 10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths less of a tragedy than 2,900 American deaths?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Answer my question first. I clarified the question with detail behind the Iraqi deaths. You just continue to dodge and evad.

Typical.

No - the premise is flawed. I don't equate MURDER with collateral damage, so any conclusion you may come to when looking at the numbers is flawed IMO. I don't and won't accept it as a premise.

Do you equate Murder with collateral damage?

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Answer my question first. I clarified the question with detail behind the Iraqi deaths. You just continue to dodge and evad.

Typical.

No - the premise is flawed. I don't equate MURDER with collateral damage, so any conclusion you may come to when looking at the numbers is flawed IMO. I don't and won't accept it as a premise.

Do you equate Murder with collateral damage?

CkG

Well, only a few hundred murdered following your logic. The building collapses were collateral damage.

I'll take your answer as a Yes, that you feel 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians are meaningless.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

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?

I spent 8 weeks of my senior year in switzerland, france, and belgium (mostly France). I've been to Mexico, several islands in the carribbean, and several provinces in Canada.

I'm well aware of the vast amount of anti-US sentiment in the world today. You are asking me to take a world perspective. Does this world perspective include the US's perspective or not? How much is France's perspective worth? How much is Saudi Arabia, and Israel's worth? My point is, there is no world perspective. There are only individual perspectives.


Here, I'll make this a little easier for you, since this is what you are looking for.

From a calculator's perspective, if X = the amount of deaths in 9/11, and y = the amount of deaths in iraq, and z = the level of tragedy, then x < y, therefore z is higher with y.

But we don't measure lives by the abacus. We measure them by what they mean to us. How many innocents would I sacrifice to save my family? How many would you? Zero? >1? Would you have taken an innocent life to save 2,900 on 9/11? Would you take your own life?

Just answer the question.

From a world perspective (yes, minus the U.S.) are 10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths less of a tragedy than 2,900 American deaths?

From a world perspective, yes, 10,000 iraqis dying is less of a tragedy than 2,900 americans. The world respects the US quite a bit. The 2,900 were murdered in cold blood. The outpouring of support after 9/11 far overshadows any support the world is willing to offer Iraq, just to spite the US and say "we told you so". The world perspective doesn't give a rats ass about poor nameless Iraqis.

Just as it doesn't care about a million poor nameless rwandans or ethiopians. Just as the world didn't give a crap abour the millions of jews that died in WW2, or the rape of nanking, or the millions of chinese that Mao killed, or the millions that stalin killed.

The world cares about how we are exercising our power against their wishes. Against their politics. That's the world perspective. That's George Soros perspective. If George really gave 2 shits about innocent lives, he wouldn't be a billionaire. How many people could he feed? How many villages could he provide running water to? How many thousands die so he can be rich?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Answer my question first. I clarified the question with detail behind the Iraqi deaths. You just continue to dodge and evad.

Typical.

No - the premise is flawed. I don't equate MURDER with collateral damage, so any conclusion you may come to when looking at the numbers is flawed IMO. I don't and won't accept it as a premise.

Do you equate Murder with collateral damage?

CkG

Well, only a few hundred murdered following your logic. The building collapses were collateral damage.

I'll take your answer as a Yes, that you feel 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians are meaningless.

No, collateral damage is a military thing. Inadvertent damage/death due to military action.(ie not purposely targeted). Terrorists flying planes into buildings isn't military and trying to make the case that it could be "collateral damage" is laughable. Those terrorists wanted to kill the people in those towers and buildings.

My answer is not "Yes" and it isn't "No" - the question isn't acceptable as the premise is flawed. I don't accept the premise that an equivalency(moral or otherwise) can be drawn from them.

It seems you do equate purposeful Murder with Military collateral damage. I don't - and won't.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

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?

I spent 8 weeks of my senior year in switzerland, france, and belgium (mostly France). I've been to Mexico, several islands in the carribbean, and several provinces in Canada.

I'm well aware of the vast amount of anti-US sentiment in the world today. You are asking me to take a world perspective. Does this world perspective include the US's perspective or not? How much is France's perspective worth? How much is Saudi Arabia, and Israel's worth? My point is, there is no world perspective. There are only individual perspectives.


Here, I'll make this a little easier for you, since this is what you are looking for.

From a calculator's perspective, if X = the amount of deaths in 9/11, and y = the amount of deaths in iraq, and z = the level of tragedy, then x < y, therefore z is higher with y.

But we don't measure lives by the abacus. We measure them by what they mean to us. How many innocents would I sacrifice to save my family? How many would you? Zero? >1? Would you have taken an innocent life to save 2,900 on 9/11? Would you take your own life?

Just answer the question.

From a world perspective (yes, minus the U.S.) are 10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths less of a tragedy than 2,900 American deaths?

From a world perspective, yes, 10,000 iraqis dying is less of a tragedy than 2,900 americans. The world respects the US quite a bit. The 2,900 were murdered in cold blood. The outpouring of support after 9/11 far overshadows any support the world is willing to offer Iraq, just to spite the US and say "we told you so". The world perspective doesn't give a rats ass about poor nameless Iraqis.

Just as it doesn't care about a million poor nameless rwandans or ethiopians. Just as the world didn't give a crap abour the millions of jews that died in WW2, or the rape of nanking, or the millions of chinese that Mao killed, or the millions that stalin killed.

The world cares about how we are exercising our power against their wishes. Against their politics. That's the world perspective. That's George Soros perspective. If George really gave 2 shits about innocent lives, he wouldn't be a billionaire. How many people could he feed? How many villages could he provide running water to? How many thousands die so he can be rich?

You think the world is trying to spite the U.S. by not supporting the invasion of Iraq??? Wow. That's quite an accusatory statement. I'm surprised you don't think it would have more to do with the fact that it's an unjust war, fought only to serve the vision of the PNAC. Perhaps the rest of world realizes more of the truth about American arrogance than you think.

And I have no idea what you're trying to do with that Soros rant. That's a completely invalid analogy.

 

[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
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

Answer my question first. I clarified the question with detail behind the Iraqi deaths. You just continue to dodge and evad.

Typical.

No - the premise is flawed. I don't equate MURDER with collateral damage, so any conclusion you may come to when looking at the numbers is flawed IMO. I don't and won't accept it as a premise.

Do you equate Murder with collateral damage?

CkG

Well, only a few hundred murdered following your logic. The building collapses were collateral damage.

I'll take your answer as a Yes, that you feel 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians are meaningless.

No, collateral damage is a military thing. Inadvertent damage/death due to military action.(ie not purposely targeted). Terrorists flying planes into buildings isn't military and trying to make the case that it could be "collateral damage" is laughable. Those terrorists wanted to kill the people in those towers and buildings.

My answer is not "Yes" and it isn't "No" - the question isn't acceptable as the premise is flawed. I don't accept the premise that an equivalency(moral or otherwise) can be drawn from them.

It seems you do equate purposeful Murder with Military collateral damage. I don't - and won't.

CkG

When the military actions are due to an unjust war, that "collateral damage" certainly does approach the equivalence of murder.

But, it's nice of you to wholly dismiss the lives of over 10,000 civilians.

 

[alchemize]

You think the world is trying to spite the U.S. by not supporting the invasion of Iraq??? Wow. That's quite an accusatory statement. I'm surprised you don't think it would have more to do with the fact that it's an unjust war, fought only to serve the vision of the PNAC. Perhaps the rest of world realizes more of the truth about American arrogance than you think.

And I have no idea what you're trying to do with that Soros rant. That's a completely invalid analogy.

Who said anything about supporting the invasion? If the world loves innocent iraqis so much, where is the vast outpouring of humanitarian relief? Who cares if the war is just or unjust, we've got innocent iraqi's that need the world's help? Who cares if America is arrogant, there are innocent iraqi's that need the world's help?

The world doesn't care. And hence my answer. Take it or leave it.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: 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
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

Answer my question first. I clarified the question with detail behind the Iraqi deaths. You just continue to dodge and evad.

Typical.

No - the premise is flawed. I don't equate MURDER with collateral damage, so any conclusion you may come to when looking at the numbers is flawed IMO. I don't and won't accept it as a premise.

Do you equate Murder with collateral damage?

CkG

Well, only a few hundred murdered following your logic. The building collapses were collateral damage.

I'll take your answer as a Yes, that you feel 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians are meaningless.

No, collateral damage is a military thing. Inadvertent damage/death due to military action.(ie not purposely targeted). Terrorists flying planes into buildings isn't military and trying to make the case that it could be "collateral damage" is laughable. Those terrorists wanted to kill the people in those towers and buildings.

My answer is not "Yes" and it isn't "No" - the question isn't acceptable as the premise is flawed. I don't accept the premise that an equivalency(moral or otherwise) can be drawn from them.

It seems you do equate purposeful Murder with Military collateral damage. I don't - and won't.

CkG

When the military actions are due to an unjust war, that "collateral damage" certainly does approach the equivalence of murder.

But, it's nice of you to wholly dismiss the lives of over 10,000 civilians.

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Saddam?

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Hitler?

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Stalin?

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Communist China?

What about the 10s of thousands that died at the hands of the French Gov't last year due to the heat?

What about the thousands that die in an earthquake or a flood?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
When the military actions are due to an unjust war, that "collateral damage" certainly does approach the equivalence of murder.

But, it's nice of you to wholly dismiss the lives of over 10,000 civilians.

Again I don't accept your insinuation because nothing I have stated could lead you to the conclusion that I "wholly dismiss the lives of xxx civilians".

The premise is flawed - no equivalencies can be drawn from them.

You equate purposeful Murder with Collateral damage from military action and I don't. Your opinion of the "justness" of the war doesn't change anything as it's only opinion.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Saddam?

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Hitler?

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Stalin?

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Communist China?

What about the 10s of thousands that died at the hands of the French Gov't last year due to the heat?

What about the thousands that die in an earthquake or a flood?

What about them? They're not part of this discussion.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
When the military actions are due to an unjust war, that "collateral damage" certainly does approach the equivalence of murder.

But, it's nice of you to wholly dismiss the lives of over 10,000 civilians.

Again I don't accept your insinuation because nothing I have stated could lead you to the conclusion that I "wholly dismiss the lives of xxx civilians".

Certainly there is. You have never once said it was a tragedy...not even on a lesser level. You just continue to call it collateral damage. That's dismissive.

The premise is flawed - no equivalencies can be drawn from them.

You equate purposeful Murder with Collateral damage from military action and I don't. Your opinion of the "justness" of the war doesn't change anything as it's only opinion.

CkG

Sorry, not opinion. It's now fact.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
When the military actions are due to an unjust war, that "collateral damage" certainly does approach the equivalence of murder.

But, it's nice of you to wholly dismiss the lives of over 10,000 civilians.

Again I don't accept your insinuation because nothing I have stated could lead you to the conclusion that I "wholly dismiss the lives of xxx civilians".

Certainly there is. You have never once said it was a tragedy...not even on a lesser level. You just continue to call it collateral damage. That's dismissive.

The premise is flawed - no equivalencies can be drawn from them.

You equate purposeful Murder with Collateral damage from military action and I don't. Your opinion of the "justness" of the war doesn't change anything as it's only opinion.

CkG

Sorry, not opinion. It's now fact.

No, I'm saying I don't buy it's premise - I did not "wholly dismiss" the innocent lives that were lost.

Yes, it is your opinion and not fact. The war IMO was justified.

CkG

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Saddam?

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Hitler?

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Stalin?

What about the millions of civilians that died at the hands of Communist China?

What about the 10s of thousands that died at the hands of the French Gov't last year due to the heat?

What about the thousands that die in an earthquake or a flood?

What about them? They're not part of this discussion.

Nice that you can dismiss the lives of millions....

Who removed Saddam...America

Who removed Hitler...America

Who defeated commuinism in USSR...America

Who is defeating communism in China...America

Who sends aid and resources to all those countries who have earthquakes and floods....America

Our leadership and vision have saved and changed this world many times....

You know this all does tie to Bush because he is continuing in the tradition of America being a leader.

It would have been a sad day for this country if there would have been too many people like you in World War 2.

You would be protesting the war in Eurpope because Germany never attacked us, unlike Japan....declaration of war or no...Germany never attacked us.

You would support the war with Japan (maybe) but curse the war with Germany....just think of all the German civilians that were killed in that great struggle....but you would declare that the Presidents fault.....how would you have reacted with the daily reports coming out of the battle for Normandy...a battle where 20000 US Soldiers lost their lives....quagmire I bet...

This is all relevent....history repeats itself over and over.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
When the military actions are due to an unjust war, that "collateral damage" certainly does approach the equivalence of murder.

But, it's nice of you to wholly dismiss the lives of over 10,000 civilians.

Again I don't accept your insinuation because nothing I have stated could lead you to the conclusion that I "wholly dismiss the lives of xxx civilians".

Certainly there is. You have never once said it was a tragedy...not even on a lesser level. You just continue to call it collateral damage. That's dismissive.

The premise is flawed - no equivalencies can be drawn from them.

You equate purposeful Murder with Collateral damage from military action and I don't. Your opinion of the "justness" of the war doesn't change anything as it's only opinion.

CkG

Sorry, not opinion. It's now fact.

No, I'm saying I don't buy it's premise - I did not "wholly dismiss" the innocent lives that were lost.

Yes, it is your opinion and not fact. The war IMO was justified.

CkG

How can you say it was justified when no WMDs were found? That was the whole premise behind the war. That Saddam had not disclosed the location of the WMDs and the activities of the WMD programs which put him, supposedly, in violation of the cease fire. Said violation supposedly gave authorization to INVADE (don't recall that text in the U.N. resolutions.)

Since no WMDs exist, the premise is false.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur


How can you say it was justified when no WMDs were found? That was the whole premise behind the war. That Saddam had not disclosed the location of the WMDs and the activities of the WMD programs which put him, supposedly, in violation of the cease fire. Said violation supposedly gave authorization to INVADE (don't recall that text in the U.N. resolutions.)

Since no WMDs exist, the premise is false.

<ahem>

In this

link

You will find along with what you call the whole premise several other reasons.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
When the military actions are due to an unjust war, that "collateral damage" certainly does approach the equivalence of murder.

But, it's nice of you to wholly dismiss the lives of over 10,000 civilians.

Again I don't accept your insinuation because nothing I have stated could lead you to the conclusion that I "wholly dismiss the lives of xxx civilians".

Certainly there is. You have never once said it was a tragedy...not even on a lesser level. You just continue to call it collateral damage. That's dismissive.

The premise is flawed - no equivalencies can be drawn from them.

You equate purposeful Murder with Collateral damage from military action and I don't. Your opinion of the "justness" of the war doesn't change anything as it's only opinion.

CkG

Sorry, not opinion. It's now fact.

No, I'm saying I don't buy it's premise - I did not "wholly dismiss" the innocent lives that were lost.

Yes, it is your opinion and not fact. The war IMO was justified.

CkG

How can you say it was justified when no WMDs were found? That was the whole premise behind the war. That Saddam had not disclosed the location of the WMDs and the activities of the WMD programs which put him, supposedly, in violation of the cease fire. Said violation supposedly gave authorization to INVADE (don't recall that text in the U.N. resolutions.)

Since no WMDs exist, the premise is false.

Nope, and even if I agreed that that the War was "unjust" it doesn't mean you can equate Murder by terrorists to Unintentional deaths due to military action.

We best just agree to disagree because I will never accept the premise that an equivilency can be drawn between 9/11 and War collateral damage - let alone prison abuse. Soros is a scumbag IMO. He's pandering to the hardcore left and his comments were disgusting and repulsive.

IMO ofcourse😀

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


How can you say it was justified when no WMDs were found? That was the whole premise behind the war. That Saddam had not disclosed the location of the WMDs and the activities of the WMD programs which put him, supposedly, in violation of the cease fire. Said violation supposedly gave authorization to INVADE (don't recall that text in the U.N. resolutions.)

Since no WMDs exist, the premise is false.

<ahem>

In this

link

You will find along with what you call the whole premise several other reasons.

I no longer buy into the President's rhetoric.

The only thing that offered authorization of force was breaking the cease fire agreement. Nothing else justified an invasion.

And, now that WMDs have not been found and the intelligence behind the "knowledge" they existed and where the were has been shown to be false and misleading, the entire war is now unjustified.

 

[heartsurgeon]

CAD...some people don't have the capacity to understand that conflicts result in "collateral damage", that innocent civilians (assuming you can actually tell who was innocent) die during war, but that this war on terrror, those who support terrorism, and the war against saddam...save more "innocent" civilian lives than they unintentionally end.

Saddam killed approximately 1,000,000 people over his 20 year reign..that's 50,000 per year. i will assume they were all "innocent" since in this forum all iraqi dead are apparently "innocent"

that means, in the course of liberating the iraqi people from the shackles of a despot...10,000 "innocents" were killed by U.S. action.

that means 50,000 "innocents" were not killed by Saddam (probably more since we have been there more than one year).

gee, net benefit 40,000 "innocent" iraqis saved from death.

we are not the root cause of the death of "innocent" iraqi's...saddam is responsible for not fulfilling his obligations under the 1991 agreement ending the Iraq 1 war, he alone is the cause.

Some would prefer to blame America, as is their habit.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
CAD...some people don't have the capacity to understand that conflicts result in "collateral damage", that innocent civilians (assuming you can actually tell who was innocent) die during war, but that this war on terrror, those who support terrorism, and the war against saddam...save more "innocent" civilian lives than they unintentionally end.

Saddam killed approximately 1,000,000 people over his 20 year reign..that's 50,000 per year. i will assume they were all "innocent" since in this forum all iraqi dead are apparently "innocent"

that means, in the course of liberating the iraqi people from the shackles of a despot...10,000 "innocents" were killed by U.S. action.

that means 50,000 "innocents" were not killed by Saddam (probably more since we have been there more than one year).

gee, net benefit 40,000 "innocent" iraqis saved from death.

we are not the root cause of the death of "innocent" iraqi's...saddam is responsible for not fulfilling his obligations under the 1991 agreement ending the Iraq 1 war, he alone is the cause.

Some would prefer to blame America, as is their habit.

:roll: And you honestly think the Iraqi people look at these deaths in different lights like you? And what's up with this "innocent" remarks? You think they are "guilty"? You think these people are thanking us because we "allegedly" spared them 40,000 lives?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
CAD...some people don't have the capacity to understand that conflicts result in "collateral damage", that innocent civilians (assuming you can actually tell who was innocent) die during war, but that this war on terrror, those who support terrorism, and the war against saddam...save more "innocent" civilian lives than they unintentionally end.

Saddam killed approximately 1,000,000 people over his 20 year reign..that's 50,000 per year. i will assume they were all "innocent" since in this forum all iraqi dead are apparently "innocent"

that means, in the course of liberating the iraqi people from the shackles of a despot...10,000 "innocents" were killed by U.S. action.

that means 50,000 "innocents" were not killed by Saddam (probably more since we have been there more than one year).

gee, net benefit 40,000 "innocent" iraqis saved from death.

we are not the root cause of the death of "innocent" iraqi's...saddam is responsible for not fulfilling his obligations under the 1991 agreement ending the Iraq 1 war, he alone is the cause.

Some would prefer to blame America, as is their habit.

Please tell us more about this "war on terror". Presidents Carter (somewhat) and Reagan trained and honed Al Qaida and the Taliban into superb forces of terror. Why should the US bitch and moan now when Al Qaida is doing what it does best - fighting it's enemies?

The fact remains that the US is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Abu Grahib is terror, supporting people like Sharon and Khalil is terror, The School of the Americas is terror. The same people that now are invading Iraq supported Saddam's terror. Clinton supported the US led "Oil for food" program that tormented, terrorized if you will, the Iraqi population and killed them by the hundreds of thousands. To claim that Saddam alone is the cause is simplistic (I can't believe that the conservatives here do not blame Clinton more for the failure of the "Oil for food" program, yet I do understand why for once they forbear to criticize Clinton. This wasn't a democratic policy, this was US foreign policy). What kind of people demand reason from a psychopatic and homicidal dictator? No, to blame Saddam is to miss the point. The point is that for geostrategic reasons the US wanted to create a mess in the Middle East and they succeeded only too well. Now they are there to clean up the mess according to US interests. Hence the fourteen permanent US military bases being built in Iraq.

Zbigniew Brezezinski, advisor to President Carter and influential with Bush Sr., Clinton, and now Bush Jr., and foreign policy guru in Washington in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and it's Geopolitical Imperatives defines Eurasia as the "center of world power". And the key to controlling Eurasia is Central Asia. Dominance over Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Takijistan and Kyrgyzstan ensures a "guardpost" over American control of the oil of the Persian Gulf. Now Brezezinski is not a neocon, but a mainstream foreign policy strategist in Washington. The neocon plan is basically a modification of this strategy. Permanent military bases in Iraq will ensure that US interests in the region is looked after. The oil supply is ensured and military power is projected into Central Asis. This has nothing to do with the freedom of the Iraqi people. Everybody understands that the Iraqi people wants to look after their own destiny without US meddling. And the US has been meddling for decades out of it's own "Geopolitical Imperatives".

"US Geopolitical Imperatives" rules the roost, not the "war on terror" which is simply a propaganda monicker. And the US political leadership does not care what the cost is to meet those imperatives as long as the cost has nothing directly to do with them. Btw. Kerry will continue this "US imperative" foreign policy.