war math!

[jhouston]

x=war
y=no war
a=Iraqi people free
b=Iragi people in bondage
c=war for oil
d=war for wmd
e=no wmd
f=inspections working

x+c=a
x+d=a
y+e=b
y+f=b



g=Middle East hates Israel
h=USA allied with Israel

constant: g+h=i

i=Middle East hates USA

j=offensive stance against terrorism
k=defensive stance against terrorism

x + j = i

y + k = i


l = go after offending countries (What's up Syria!)
m = stay at home and isolate (like pre Pearl Harbor)

n = tear down as much terrorist activity and support for terrorism in the Middle East as possible
o = do nothing and wait to be attacked again

l + i = n

m + i = o



p=America cares for its citizens
q=Middle East did not care for the people of Iraq

p + n = r
o + q = s

r = better world for the people subjected to evil philosophys and dictatorships
s= a world left to its own devices where evil is allowed to rule and reign as a result of these governments

 

[SuperTool]

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.
If they didn't like being in bondage, they should have overthrown Saddam. No good things in life are free.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.
If they didn't like being in bondage, they should have overthrown Saddam. No good things in life are free.

So you'd be one of those that pass by the injured guy on the path. Hmm, it's all starting to make sense to me now

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.
If they didn't like being in bondage, they should have overthrown Saddam. No good things in life are free.

So you'd be one of those that pass by the injured guy on the path. Hmm, it's all starting to make sense to me now

CkG

We have people in this country who can't afford their medicines or health insurance? You would pass by them and go blow 100BN in Iraq?

 

[43st]

LOL... All the conservatives are going to pop up now and say how concerned they are about their poor brothers, about how they always go out of there way to help out the community and how they spend their life making the world a better place to live in. Join Gods party, doing the lords work one dollar at a time.

Keep up the good work!

 

[43st]

Oh.... and I think your math is a bit fuzzy. We have another 50 countries to invade if the humanitarian argument is the true reason to liberate Irak.

 

[Corn]

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.........No good things in life are free.

Wow......unintentionally, of course, your last sentence managed to justify the cost of this war.

One thing that I do admire about you progressive liberals is your often deftness at showing your true colors in spite of your rhetoric. Case in point, it's clear that your support for the suffering of the Iraqi people stops where your perceived wallet is concerned. To you it's all about the money.......who cares if the Iraqi people suffer and die, this war is gonna cost you $285!!!!!!! :disgust:

 

[Corn]

Oh.... and I think your math is a bit fuzzy. We have another 50 countries to invade if the humanitarian argument is the true reason to liberate Irak.

Reasons notwithstanding, the outcome remains the same.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Corn

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.........No good things in life are free.

Wow......unintentionally, of course, your last sentence managed to justify the cost of this war.

One thing that I do admire about you progressive liberals is your often deftness at showing your true colors in spite of your rhetoric. Case in point, it's clear that your support for the suffering of the Iraqi people stops where your perceived wallet is concerned. To you it's all about the money.......who cares if the Iraqi people suffer and die, this war is gonna cost you $285!!!!!!! :disgust:

I don't support the suffering of Iraqi people.
And you conservatives are the first in line to bitch when your taxes go up, but also first in line to support blowing money on war.
We cannot even afford our government without a war.

 

[43st]

Wow... So the Conservatives want to invade every country with a dictator and a miserable citizenry? If that's honestly the case then I may've been wrong about the Conservative motives. Let's wait and see, if you're right this may end up looking better than I thought.

I'd actually change partys if that's the case. Can you provide some proof of this grand moral war? I haven't seen anything about it on CNN yet.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn
One thing that I do admire about you progressive liberals is your often deftness at showing your true colors in spite of your rhetoric. Case in point, it's clear that your support for the suffering of the Iraqi people stops where your perceived wallet is concerned. To you it's all about the money.......who cares if the Iraqi people suffer and die, this war is gonna cost you $285!!!!!!! :disgust:

This might actually be credible if the so-called conservatives who support the war were willing to put their money where their mouth is. In reality, of course, they aren't willing to bear the cost of this war either. They still demand their tax cut for the wealthy, passing the burden of the war on to the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the poor schmucks who still pay taxes, primarily the middleclass.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So you'd be one of those that pass by the injured guy on the path. Hmm, it's all starting to make sense to me now

CkG

If it cost me a hundred billion dollars, yes I would. And so would you.

(But these gratuitous attacks, irrelevant to the topic at hand, are becoming the signature of many of the pro-war folks. Thanks for not disappointing us.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYSo you'd be one of those that pass by the injured guy on the path. Hmm, it's all starting to make sense to me now

CkG

If it cost me a hundred billion dollars, yes I would. And so would you.

(But these gratuitous attacks, irrelevant to the topic at hand, are becoming the signature of many of the pro-war folks. Thanks for not disappointing us.)

No - you just don't get it.
I was responding directly to this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.
If they didn't like being in bondage, they should have overthrown Saddam. No good things in life are free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was not irrelevant as I was merely asking a sarcastic question. There was no "attack"

If you want me to attack I could easily do so because hypocracy knows no political, religious, racial boundaries

CkG

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Corn

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.........No good things in life are free.

Wow......unintentionally, of course, your last sentence managed to justify the cost of this war.

One thing that I do admire about you progressive liberals is your often deftness at showing your true colors in spite of your rhetoric. Case in point, it's clear that your support for the suffering of the Iraqi people stops where your perceived wallet is concerned. To you it's all about the money.......who cares if the Iraqi people suffer and die, this war is gonna cost you $285!!!!!!! :disgust:

I always wondered how republicans can justify spending billions of dollars solving the world's problems but won't spend a dime helping the needy in our own country (unless there's a tax cut stapled on the back of it). The mantra seems to be "liberate the Iraqi people!" when we have plenty of people at home who could use that $100B.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I was responding directly to this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.
If they didn't like being in bondage, they should have overthrown Saddam. No good things in life are free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was not irrelevant as I was merely asking a sarcastic question. There was no "attack"

I disagree. Perhaps that wasn't your conscious intent, but what other purpose does that sarcastic comment serve? Does it convey information? Does it add to the discussion? Does it answer a question or respond to an issue or concern?

In my opinion, no. It serves only to slur the character of SuperTool. You equate a trivial refusal to lend a hand with opposition to spending a $100 billion - not to mention killing thousands of people, increasing the risk of domestic terrorism, and alienating much of the rest of the world. This may be a stretch for some people, but I see a clear difference between the two situations.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Corn

Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.........No good things in life are free.

Wow......unintentionally, of course, your last sentence managed to justify the cost of this war.

One thing that I do admire about you progressive liberals is your often deftness at showing your true colors in spite of your rhetoric. Case in point, it's clear that your support for the suffering of the Iraqi people stops where your perceived wallet is concerned. To you it's all about the money.......who cares if the Iraqi people suffer and die, this war is gonna cost you $285!!!!!!! :disgust:

I always wondered how republicans can justify spending billions of dollars solving the world's problems but won't spend a dime helping the needy in our own country (unless there's a tax cut stapled on the back of it). The mantra seems to be "liberate the Iraqi people!" when we have plenty of people at home who could use that $100B.

Yup, but you have to remember, Republicans are the true lovers of this country. By "helping" people thousands of miles away, they are making this country better for you and me... who actually live here. It doesn't matter if you don't have medicine or go to an inner city school, atleast you're safe from Saddam's phantom WMD, the most dangerous kind as you cannot even see them, making them virtually impossible to find. But even if there are no WMD, the world is now safer for democracy. Besides, think of all the oil revenue we will be generating so people like poor, old, decrepid Cheney don't have to work so hard and we can honor them the way true patriots should be honored... with money and immunity from prosecution. God bless the US!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I was responding directly to this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Better them be in bondage under Saddam then us be in bondage for another 100 Billion debt under Dubya.
If they didn't like being in bondage, they should have overthrown Saddam. No good things in life are free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was not irrelevant as I was merely asking a sarcastic question. There was no "attack"

I disagree. Perhaps that wasn't your conscious intent, but what other purpose does that sarcastic comment serve? Does it convey information? Does it add to the discussion? Does it answer a question or respond to an issue or concern?

In my opinion, no. It serves only to slur the character of SuperTool. You equate a trivial refusal to lend a hand with opposition to spending a $100 billion - not to mention killing thousands of people, increasing the risk of domestic terrorism, and alienating much of the rest of the world. This may be a stretch for some people, but I see a clear difference between the two situations.

No, I did not equate that, the $100 billion has nothing to do with my morality question. SuperTool said that he'd rather have them suffer than himself(and the USA) pay a monetary price. Far be it from me and my global domination, oil sucking, cigar smoking, hawkish freinds to actually have a heart.:brokenheart: Did it "slur" SuperTool? maybe, but only if he really feels what he typed. On the road of life I seriously hope you guys don't ever find yourself in dire need of help because you never know who might pass you by just because they don't want the hassle of helping you.
You guys (liberal wackos and their ilk) like to protray Republicans and such as cold hearted war mongers but then when we try to show you that we do have a heart then you just say we're in it for the money and we don't really care for the people. But look who's caring now

Now I'm not saying that we went to war just to free their people, but rather it was one of MANY reasons. You guys can pick apart each pro-war stance you want but when you see all the pieces put together you might be able to see the picture

CkG

The above is MY view and may or may not reflect the views of "us warmongers"

 

[sandorski]

"you(they) just don't get it!"

This is a phrase used by many to describe those who disagree with them. Of course it is true, however, it is also true of the person(s) using the statement.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No, I did not equate that, the $100 billion has nothing to do with my morality question. SuperTool said that he'd rather have them suffer than himself(and the USA) pay a monetary price. Far be it from me and my global domination, oil sucking, cigar smoking, hawkish freinds to actually have a heart.:brokenheart: Did it "slur" SuperTool? maybe, but only if he really feels what he typed. On the road of life I seriously hope you guys don't ever find yourself in dire need of help because you never know who might pass you by just because they don't want the hassle of helping you.
You guys (liberal wackos and their ilk) like to protray Republicans and such as cold hearted war mongers but then when we try to show you that we do have a heart then you just say we're in it for the money and we don't really care for the people. But look who's caring now

Now I'm not saying that we went to war just to free their people, but rather it was one of MANY reasons. You guys can pick apart each pro-war stance you want but when you see all the pieces put together you might be able to see the picture

LOL. What a complete and utter crock.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No, I did not equate that, the $100 billion has nothing to do with my morality question. SuperTool said that he'd rather have them suffer than himself(and the USA) pay a monetary price. Far be it from me and my global domination, oil sucking, cigar smoking, hawkish freinds to actually have a heart.:brokenheart: Did it "slur" SuperTool? maybe, but only if he really feels what he typed. On the road of life I seriously hope you guys don't ever find yourself in dire need of help because you never know who might pass you by just because they don't want the hassle of helping you.
You guys (liberal wackos and their ilk) like to protray Republicans and such as cold hearted war mongers but then when we try to show you that we do have a heart then you just say we're in it for the money and we don't really care for the people. But look who's caring now

Now I'm not saying that we went to war just to free their people, but rather it was one of MANY reasons. You guys can pick apart each pro-war stance you want but when you see all the pieces put together you might be able to see the picture

LOL. What a complete and utter crock.

Wow - I never would have believed such a fine rebuttal from you

OK, you win, I lose, just because you say so

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
"you(they) just don't get it!"

This is a phrase used by many to describe those who disagree with them. Of course it is true, however, it is also true of the person(s) using the statement.

Originally posted by: CkG
No - you just don't get it.

was intended for Bowfinger since he couldn't comphrehend what I was saying whether he agreed with it or not. He didn't "get it" because he like alot of people on this board do not understand the concept of "context". The dollar figure is not relavant to my question. Money or no money - would he help an injured/incapacitated person along the path? He answered how?

Now then Bowfinger - how little amount of money would you say it would be worth to help others? Or do you only do it for pay?

CkG

 

[Insane3D]

Hold on guys while I make some popcorn....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Hold on guys while I make some popcorn....

Get some of that stove top popcorn, there are plenty of flames in here to get it popping quick

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Hold on guys while I make some popcorn....

Nah. There's nothing to respond to in his last few posts, just name calling, random digs, blatant sterotyping, and absurd straw-man propositions. I'm interested in discussions, not flame wars.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Hold on guys while I make some popcorn....

Nah. There's nothing to respond to in his last few posts, just name calling, random digs, blatant sterotyping, and absurd straw-man propositions. I'm interested in discussions, not flame wars.

I agree