Originally posted by: Tylanner
Don't the ends justify the means??
Isn't that the Liberal motto?
The ends don't justify the means.
Originally posted by: Tylanner
Don't the ends justify the means??
Isn't that the Liberal motto?
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?
[snip the emotional propaganda]
The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.
I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:
Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.
Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?
My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|
For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.
It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:
But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:
Forgot your meds???
Originally posted by: BBond
Spin that (in this thread, preferably). I realize that,,,,errr,,, I mean,,,, given your propensity for exaggerating things to their extremes, the little problem you have on going off on tangents, your inability to stay focused on the topic, and along with your ability to alienate anybody that may disagree with your distorted views, that you may have trouble formulating a valid rebuttal to my post, but what the hell, why don't you give it a try anyway.Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?
[snip the emotional propaganda]
The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.
I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:
Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.
Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?
My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|
For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.
It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:
But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:
Forgot your meds???
. :laugh:
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Spin that (in this thread, preferably). I realize that,,,,errr,,, I mean,,,, given your propensity for exaggerating things to their extremes, the little problem you have on going off on tangents, your inability to stay focused on the topic, and along with your ability to alienate anybody that may disagree with your distorted views, that you may have trouble formulating a valid rebuttal to my post, but what the hell, why don't you give it a try anyway.Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?
[snip the emotional propaganda]
The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.
I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:
Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.
Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?
My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|
For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.
It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:
But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:
Forgot your meds???
. :laugh:
I don't respond to ridiculous questions on whether I plan to join an insurgency from drones like you who can't fathom the difference between patriotism and Bush worship.
Supporting Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq is the same as joining an insurgency to 100,000 dead Iraqis, so why don't you join?
The numbers of dead due to Bush's illegal, immoral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq keep climbing. What a sin for anyone to support this unnecessary massacre.
1,221 -- November 21, 2004 -- 613th day
All due to Bush's lies...
Originally posted by: BBond
No valid rebuttal to my post=bbond's view marginalized. :thumbsup:Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Spin that (in this thread, preferably). I realize that,,,,errr,,, I mean,,,, given your propensity for exaggerating things to their extremes, the little problem you have on going off on tangents, your inability to stay focused on the topic, and along with your ability to alienate anybody that may disagree with your distorted views, that you may have trouble formulating a valid rebuttal to my post, but what the hell, why don't you give it a try anyway.Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?
[snip the emotional propaganda]
The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.
I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:
Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.
Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?
My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|
For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.
It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:
But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:
Forgot your meds???
. :laugh:
I don't respond to ridiculous questions on whether I plan to join an insurgency from drones like you who can't fathom the difference between patriotism and Bush worship.
Supporting Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq is the same as joining an insurgency to 100,000 dead Iraqis, so why don't you join?
The numbers of dead due to Bush's illegal, immoral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq keep climbing. What a sin for anyone to support this unnecessary massacre.
1,221 -- November 21, 2004 -- 613th day
All due to Bush's lies...
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Spin that (in this thread, preferably). I realize that,,,,errr,,, I mean,,,, given your propensity for exaggerating things to their extremes, the little problem you have on going off on tangents, your inability to stay focused on the topic, and along with your ability to alienate anybody that may disagree with your distorted views, that you may have trouble formulating a valid rebuttal to my post, but what the hell, why don't you give it a try anyway.Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?
[snip the emotional propaganda]
The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.
I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:
Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.
Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?
My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|
For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.
It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:
But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:
Forgot your meds???
. :laugh:
I don't respond to ridiculous questions on whether I plan to join an insurgency from drones like you who can't fathom the difference between patriotism and Bush worship.
Supporting Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq is the same as joining an insurgency to 100,000 dead Iraqis, so why don't you join?
The numbers of dead due to Bush's illegal, immoral, unprovoked invasion of Iraq keep climbing. What a sin for anyone to support this unnecessary massacre.
1,221 -- November 21, 2004 -- 613th day
All due to Bush's lies...
Let him wallow in his own muck.
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I would be glad to address your reasoning if you actually PRESENTED some.Your primary tenet seems to be that removing Saddam from power is immoral because a lot of people disagree with it. Sorry, but just because a lot of people feel a certain way does NOT mean they are right. Platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding, yes, 100 million people CAN be WRONG. And they very often ARE.
Jason
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
My primary tenet is that when the USA engages in pre-emptive warfare, and kills thousands of civilians, it is wholly insufficient to fall back on a claim that 'we are a highly moral nation, therefore our actions are just'. The fact remains that 'freeing the Iraqi people' was not the primary motivation for going to war in Iraq; officially, WMDs were the reason, speculatively, access to oil may have been a major consideration. I think a utilitarian approach would suggest that civilians in Iraq were not being killed by the thousands at the time of the invasion, and that civilian deaths and probably insurgency were relatively predictable outcomes of the invasion.
A much better time to act would have been at the point of succession from Saddam to his chosen successor, since at that time a power vaccuum (however brief) and civil disorder would likely have occurred. In this way you could have minimized civilian casualties now and had probably many years, instead of a few months, to plan a course of action to be put into play in the future, with at least the potential for a better result.
I'm particularly offended by cwj's original claim that the USA by virtue of it's moral status has a moral imperative to attack many nations, but should only do so if it is in their own interests; this, it seems to me, runs precisely counter to the idea of behaving morally; it claims some sort of external moral superiority, as justification for acting selfishly!
Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.
and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.
Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.
and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.
well, then thats less then 2 a day.Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.
and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.
The total is over 1,254 in 622 days now, not including the latest casualties.
None of them volunteered to die for Bush's lies.
But "thats not too bad, like 2 a day," right?
Tell that to the 1,254.
All to promote Bush's political agenda, not mine.
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.
and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.
You're well ahead of the pace for Vietnam.
The best you can do is devalue the loss of soldiers in a meaningless venture?
Originally posted by: theblackbox
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.
and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.
You're well ahead of the pace for Vietnam.
The best you can do is devalue the loss of soldiers in a meaningless venture?
By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records.
vietnam
while deaths in vietnam started off slower, it sure did pick up it's pace. how about normandy? that was ww2...How many us deaths were there and how many innocent french civilians lost their lives in the first two days?
i don't devalue their deaths, i see them for the reality it is without political ambition. They chose the career, knowing what could be expected. it's fun to see a bunch of guys sit behind their computer preaching things they most likely know nothing about.
Originally posted by: theblackbox
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.
and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.
You're well ahead of the pace for Vietnam.
The best you can do is devalue the loss of soldiers in a meaningless venture?
By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records.
vietnam
while deaths in vietnam started off slower, it sure did pick up it's pace. how about normandy? that was ww2...How many us deaths were there and how many innocent french civilians lost their lives in the first two days?
i don't devalue their deaths, i see them for the reality it is without political ambition. They chose the career, knowing what could be expected. it's fun to see a bunch of guys sit behind their computer preaching things they most likely know nothing about.
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: theblackbox
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: theblackbox
only 1200 in 600 days? thats not too bad, like 2 a day. I can't think of any other war where we only lost 2 soldiers on average a day.
gosh, and these were volunteers...not drafted. volunteers. doing a dangerous job.
and the best some of you can do is use their deaths to promote a political agenda.
shame on you.
You're well ahead of the pace for Vietnam.
The best you can do is devalue the loss of soldiers in a meaningless venture?
By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records.
vietnam
while deaths in vietnam started off slower, it sure did pick up it's pace. how about normandy? that was ww2...How many us deaths were there and how many innocent french civilians lost their lives in the first two days?
i don't devalue their deaths, i see them for the reality it is without political ambition. They chose the career, knowing what could be expected. it's fun to see a bunch of guys sit behind their computer preaching things they most likely know nothing about.
comparing normandy to iraq is lunacy.
Originally posted by: BBond
Since I started this thread on November 16, 2004 -- 31 days ago -- 104 more U.S. troops have died in Iraq.
1,304 -- December 16, 2004 -- 639th day
All due to Bush's lies...