PDA

View Full Version : Stupid Morality Question



Beefy
06-07-2007, 10:23 PM
So today, I was playing my banjo on my balcony when I noticed that a wasp flew out of my apartment and into the yonder. I got the creeps.

So he came back, flew into my apartment and then left again. So I closed the screen door, and no sooner than I did that, there was one that was trying to get out sitting there on the inside of the screen. So I pulled out my RAID and killed him. And, quite honestly, since then, I've felt guilty. I feel like I could have had a little inconvenience, and not killed him. I killed a living thing for my own convenience. Am I becoming one of you whacko leftists?

AnyOldIron
06-08-2007, 02:08 AM
Hey, that wasp would have killed you if it had the chance...

FUCK THE POLICE
06-08-2007, 03:32 AM
Would it have, now?

FUCK THE POLICE
06-08-2007, 03:32 AM
Oh BTW !MBL! you're goin to hell

LadyT
06-08-2007, 05:54 AM
Yeah, you're a lefty.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 06:19 AM
Wow, That wasp could have been your grandmother reincarnated....
Or so some might believe.
Me, I kill all the stingy things I get the chance to.

You play the banjo ? cool :)

AnyOldIron
06-08-2007, 06:25 AM
Would it have, now?

Given half a chance...

Damocles
06-08-2007, 07:05 AM
So today, I was playing my banjo on my balcony when I noticed that a wasp flew out of my apartment and into the yonder. I got the creeps.

So he came back, flew into my apartment and then left again. So I closed the screen door, and no sooner than I did that, there was one that was trying to get out sitting there on the inside of the screen. So I pulled out my RAID and killed him. And, quite honestly, since then, I've felt guilty. I feel like I could have had a little inconvenience, and not killed him. I killed a living thing for my own convenience. Am I becoming one of you whacko leftists?
Sounds like you are becoming Buddhist to me.

LadyT
06-08-2007, 07:57 AM
Pretty soon you'll stop eating meat and all meat products.

The next step is that you'll think Michael Moore's latest movie got way too negativity and that he has a good point.

The next step is that you'll drive by war protests and simply honk your horn in support.

Eventually, you'll start organizing anti-Bush effigies.

Its all a matter of time.

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 08:12 AM
Pretty soon you'll stop eating meat and all meat products.

The next step is that you'll think Michael Moore's latest movie got way too negativity and that he has a good point.

The next step is that you'll drive by war protests and simply honk your horn in support.

Eventually, you'll start organizing anti-Bush effigies.

Its all a matter of time.

LOL

He's doomed.

But, wasps, freak me. Far more than bees. So, I think I would have killed it too. If I had the guts to. More likely, I would have started screaming until some man came along to investigate. I feel, that's really what they're here for.

Cypress
06-08-2007, 08:52 AM
So today, I was playing my banjo on my balcony when I noticed that a wasp flew out of my apartment and into the yonder. I got the creeps.

So he came back, flew into my apartment and then left again. So I closed the screen door, and no sooner than I did that, there was one that was trying to get out sitting there on the inside of the screen. So I pulled out my RAID and killed him. And, quite honestly, since then, I've felt guilty. I feel like I could have had a little inconvenience, and not killed him. I killed a living thing for my own convenience. Am I becoming one of you whacko leftists?


Yeah, you're becoming a liberal.

When I find a spider in the house, I capture it and let it go outside. Spiders are cool. I can't stand the thought of squashing it ;)

Damocles
06-08-2007, 08:54 AM
I would have let the wasp go, and I really am not a "liberal". You have no fear. Don't let them attempt to convince you.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 09:13 AM
Hmm how about Snakes ? I don't kill em unless they are close to home and poison.
I just run any that might get in the basement or workshop out with a broom.
If they keep coming back I put em in a sack and relocate them.

evince
06-08-2007, 09:30 AM
how do you know it was the same wasp?

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 09:35 AM
how do you know it was the same wasp?

Is this a wasp biggotry thing ? They all look alike things ?

evince
06-08-2007, 09:45 AM
Actually his story shows they were nto the same wasp.

He shut it after one left and another one was trying to get out.

The thing is he may have to check his house for a nest.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 09:58 AM
Actually his story shows they were nto the same wasp.

He shut it after one left and another one was trying to get out.

The thing is he may have to check his house for a nest.

Or check for another hole that the one that left flew around and back in thru.

IHateGovernment
06-08-2007, 10:51 AM
This reminds me of a incident I still feel guilt over. One day when I was getting the mail out of the mailbox a yellow jacket stung me. It did not hurt terribly so but as anyone knows being stuck by one isn't too pleasant either. In anger I smashed the yellow jacket even though once I was aware of its position I could take care to avoid being stung again.

I was wrong to do this. I killed a creature that was no longer a threat.

That said if a yellow jacket was flying in my home I would have to kill it. It would be difficult to catch as it is a flying insect and it poses a danger to my wife and child as I do not want them to be stung.

Generally I will spare any insect or other arthropod I find in my home unless it is a mosquito, housefly, horsefly or yellow jacket. All of these animals are dangerous for different reasons.

As for you question MBL I think that you could have let the wasp escape especially if it was possible to put a solid door behind the wasp and then open the screen door so it would fly away.

Also it depends on the species. I know plenty about entomology so I know which species are dangerous and what aren't. Most wasps are not agressive and pose little threat regardless. Wasp specieis you must watch out for are hornets and yellow jackets both easily identifiable. Mud wasps which are common are very passive and only sting if provoked.

If you felt threatened I would say it is permissable to kill an insect if no other means of avoidance is possible. However we should not kill living things for convenience.

IHateGovernment
06-08-2007, 10:54 AM
Not wanting to harm a fellow living creature is a liberal idea unless its a human fetus :p

Doesn't necessarily make you a liberal though.

Although I will say a dedication to the idea of pacifism toward humans as well as other lifeforms makes it more likely a person will be a libertarian.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 10:56 AM
Not wanting to harm an unborn child but to kill many innocent women and children with bombs and bullets is a Con thing.

IHateGovernment
06-08-2007, 11:03 AM
True

Damocles
06-08-2007, 11:06 AM
Not wanting to harm an unborn child but to kill many innocent women and children with bombs and bullets is a Con thing.
They "want" to do this?

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 11:17 AM
They "want" to do this?

Evidence supports my statement Damo.

Especially if they are muslim children. The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim ;)

Damocles
06-08-2007, 11:20 AM
Evidence supports my statement Damo.

Especially if they are muslim children. The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim ;)
The majority never "want" that, that is a unnecessarily negative judgement of motive. Much as those who say "Pro-Choicers" want to kill babies.

IHateGovernment
06-08-2007, 11:21 AM
Want and willing are a little different though.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 11:23 AM
A little different, but the end result is pretty much the same. dead innocents.

and orders not to count the dead non combatants, I wonder why .....

Damocles
06-08-2007, 11:25 AM
Want and willing are a little different though.
Which was a difference, both sets see it as a "necessary evil". Very few would say, "Let's kill babies today!" on either side. Nobody suggested that killing as many women and children as possible as a motive for going to war. It isn't likely that you could find more than 1 in 10s of thousands that would actually believe such a thing and they are likely to be members of sideline groups like the KKK.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 11:29 AM
Sit and Spin damo. dead is dead , and those who did not forsee the dead children from a war are not too bright, so I give them little consideration.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 11:34 AM
Sit and Spin damo. dead is dead , and those who did not forsee the dead children from a war are not too bright, so I give them little consideration.
It is a difference between "necessary evil" and a wish that they "didn't have to". Like I said. It is much like those who are pro-choicers. They would talk of the "necessary evil" inherent in the action over a thrill of excitement of another child killed.

Notice the difference even with those who say, "Afghanistan was right, but not Iraq" and them not mentioning all the innocents killed there as well. What made it more morally correct and do they "want" those women/children/non-combatants killed because they think that Afghanistan was a place we should have gone?

Since they think that Afghanistan was "right" does it mean it is a liberal ideation to kill all those innocents?

IHateGovernment
06-08-2007, 11:42 AM
Good point Damo. You can't say war hawks are pro-death and then get indignant when pro-lifers call the pro-choice lobby pro-death.

It's simply that death to them isn't a 100% unacceptable outcome. How much it takes to get them to accept death is an unknown grey area that doesn't clearly separate lib and con. You just have to feel it out.

Cypress
06-08-2007, 11:50 AM
This reminds me of a incident I still feel guilt over. One day when I was getting the mail out of the mailbox a yellow jacket stung me. It did not hurt terribly so but as anyone knows being stuck by one isn't too pleasant either. In anger I smashed the yellow jacket even though once I was aware of its position I could take care to avoid being stung again.

I was wrong to do this. I killed a creature that was no longer a threat.

That said if a yellow jacket was flying in my home I would have to kill it. It would be difficult to catch as it is a flying insect and it poses a danger to my wife and child as I do not want them to be stung.

Generally I will spare any insect or other arthropod I find in my home unless it is a mosquito, housefly, horsefly or yellow jacket. All of these animals are dangerous for different reasons.

As for you question MBL I think that you could have let the wasp escape especially if it was possible to put a solid door behind the wasp and then open the screen door so it would fly away.

Also it depends on the species. I know plenty about entomology so I know which species are dangerous and what aren't. Most wasps are not agressive and pose little threat regardless. Wasp specieis you must watch out for are hornets and yellow jackets both easily identifiable. Mud wasps which are common are very passive and only sting if provoked.

If you felt threatened I would say it is permissable to kill an insect if no other means of avoidance is possible. However we should not kill living things for convenience.


I can't believe I read that whole thing. You're putting way too much thought into this. ;)



j/k

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 12:11 PM
Notice the difference even with those who say, "Afghanistan was right, but not Iraq" and them not mentioning all the innocents killed there as well. What made it more morally correct and do they "want" those women/children/non-combatants killed because they think that Afghanistan was a place we should have gone?

Iraq was a bit different from Afganistan.
there are no good wars, there are sometimes necessary wars and sometimes even just wars. Iraq is none of the above.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 12:18 PM
Notice the difference even with those who say, "Afghanistan was right, but not Iraq" and them not mentioning all the innocents killed there as well. What made it more morally correct and do they "want" those women/children/non-combatants killed because they think that Afghanistan was a place we should have gone?

Iraq was a bit different from Afganistan.
there are no good wars, there are sometimes necessary wars and sometimes even just wars. Iraq is none of the above.
Yet it is a "necessary evil"?

So you are beginning to understand the difference. One can believe it is necessary to wage war and understand that part of it will be this necessary evil. The idea that they "want" to kill all of them is ridiculous exaggeration for emotive reasons and rejects all idea that Liberals are doing exactly the same thing in a different place and that a good percentage supported even Iraq.

Suggesting that this is a "con" thing while it is happening elsewhere with full "lib" support is emotive spin.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 12:24 PM
So I guess I can discount all the cons raving a couple of yearas ago about "just nuke em all and let god sort em out" Or lets just trun the ME into a glassed over parking lot with nukes ?
Strange that I never heard liberals say that.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 12:30 PM
So I guess I can discount all the cons raving a couple of yearas ago about "just nuke em all and let god sort em out" Or lets just trun the ME into a glassed over parking lot with nukes ?
Strange that I never heard liberals say that.
LOL. Right. That should be taken seriously as the central reason that we went to war. You can tell that because we've gone and nuked them all and are now talking about the morality of the genocide we have already committed.

You are getting desperate. Libs are in "support" of killing innocents in Afghanistan, right?

Joke bumperstickers notwithstanding, it is not the goal of "cons" to kill every muslim and you know it isn't. That you can see the matter of degrees with Afghanistan and Iraq shows me that you have a full grasp of this, you just don't want to admit it.

Either Libs equally want to "kill them all" as they are willing to allow for a necessary evil there, or both sides can see a "necessary evil" and neither side "wants" that to happen. You can't have it both ways.

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 12:36 PM
LOL. Right. That should be taken seriously as the central reason that we went to war. You can tell that because we've gone and nuked them all and are now talking about the morality of the genocide we have already committed.

You are getting desperate. Libs are in "support" of killing innocents in Afghanistan, right?

Joke bumperstickers notwithstanding, it is not the goal of "cons" to kill every muslim and you know it isn't. That you can see the matter of degrees with Afghanistan and Iraq shows me that you have a full grasp of this, you just don't want to admit it.

Either Libs equally want to "kill them all" or both sides can see a "necessary evil". You can't have it both ways.

Damo, if you always think it's necessary, if you fall on your back and say it's necessary for every power-drunk president who comes along, then it's just evil. And the bush conservatives want to go to war. They are aching to go into Iran and Syria. And when they come up with a reason why we "have to", anyone who goes along with it, saying it's a "necessary evil" can just do us all a favor and drop the necessary.

About Afghanistan, the killing and starvation of children there, along with other civillians was not necessary. We should have gone in and taken bin laden out, and end of story. So basically, I have come to the conclusion that there very well might never be a "necessary' war. And if there is one, I better see fleets, and ships, and submarines off my coast. But that given, I can still differentiate between those who are panting for an excuse to see scud studs and shocks and awe on their televisions, and those who come to serious conclusions based on evidence.

One is wrong, usually, the other a war-monger.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 12:42 PM
LOL. Right. That should be taken seriously as the central reason that we went to war. You can tell that because we've gone and nuked them all and are now talking about the morality of the genocide we have already committed.

You are getting desperate. Libs are in "support" of killing innocents in Afghanistan, right?

Joke bumperstickers notwithstanding, it is not the goal of "cons" to kill every muslim and you know it isn't. That you can see the matter of degrees with Afghanistan and Iraq shows me that you have a full grasp of this, you just don't want to admit it.

Either Libs equally want to "kill them all" as they are willing to allow for a necessary evil there, or both sides can see a "necessary evil" and neither side "wants" that to happen. You can't have it both ways.

Laugh it up if you want to but that attitude is why we invaded Iraq.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 12:43 PM
Damo, if you always think it's necessary, if you fall on your back and say it's necessary for every power-drunk president who comes along, then it's just evil. And the bush conservatives want to go to war. They are aching to go into Iran and Syria. And when they come up with a reason why we "have to", anyone who goes along with it, saying it's a "necessary evil" can just do us all a favor and drop the necessary.

About Afghanistan, the killing and starvation of children there, along with other civillians was not necessary. We should have gone in and taken bin laden out, and end of story. So basically, I have come to the conclusion that there very well might never be a "necessary' war. And if there is one, I better see fleets, and ships, and submarines off my coast. But that given, I can still differentiate between those who are panting for an excuse to see scud studs and shocks and awe on their televisions, and those who come to serious conclusions based on evidence.

One is wrong, usually, the other a war-monger.


Well stated Darla.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 12:48 PM
Damo, if you always think it's necessary, if you fall on your back and say it's necessary for every power-drunk president who comes along, then it's just evil. And the bush conservatives want to go to war. They are aching to go into Iran and Syria. And when they come up with a reason why we "have to", anyone who goes along with it, saying it's a "necessary evil" can just do us all a favor and drop the necessary.

About Afghanistan, the killing and starvation of children there, along with other civillians was not necessary. We should have gone in and taken bin laden out, and end of story. So basically, I have come to the conclusion that there very well might never be a "necessary' war. And if there is one, I better see fleets, and ships, and submarines off my coast. But that given, I can still differentiate between those who are panting for an excuse to see scud studs and shocks and awe on their televisions, and those who come to serious conclusions based on evidence.

One is wrong, usually, the other a war-monger.
I haven't made that argument. I am explaining the difference between "want" and "willing". However, the Ds promote it in one place but say it is the "cons" wanting to kill them all in the other?

It is directly hypocritical to understand the difference in your own case but to promote a different standard in another.

We can, and have, argued the difference in reasoning in one place to the other, (should we have gone... you and I agree on that one BTW), but to say that the motivation behind Iraq was becuase "cons" wanted to kill women/children/non-combatants, then not to apply the same measure in Afghanistan only because Ds support the reason behind the war, is simply convenient hypocrisy.

Whether or not the reason to go to war was strong enough, yes. To say it is because "cons" WANT to kill children/women, et al. Rubbish.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 12:52 PM
Laugh it up if you want to but that attitude is why we invaded Iraq.
It isn't. We invaded Iraq because many believed that they would provide to terrorists weapons that they were afraid of. It wasn't because they wanted to kill women/children/non-combatants. That again is faulty reasoning, unless you are willing to say that Ds WANT to kill those same people in Afghanistan.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 12:53 PM
No the difference is the cons did not care if they killed women and children.

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 12:53 PM
I haven't made that argument. I am explaining the difference between "want" and "willing". However, the Ds promote it in one place but say it is the "cons" wanting to kill them all in the other?

It is directly hypocritical to understand the difference in your own case but to promote a different standard in another.

We can, and have, argued the difference in reasoning in one place to the other, (should we have gone... you and I agree on that one BTW), but to say that the motivation behind Iraq was becuase "cons" wanted to kill women/children/non-combatants, then not to apply the same measure in Afghanistan, is simply convenient hypocrisy.

Well, what I am trying to say is, if you take war in a cavalier manner, and if you are sitting in front of your television watching the shock and awe, or the scuds, or the bombing of Afghanistan, and you have been waiting for that ever since they announced that we "have to do this", and you never give any thought to what the consequences are, you are just wrapped up in "WE're Number ONE" and telling your buddies "WE really kicked their asses, huh?" then you are different than somene who weighed two wars, and found one just and one unjust. Even, if that person is wrong, and both are unjust.

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 12:55 PM
It isn't. We invaded Iraq because many believed that they would provide to terrorists weapons that they were afraid of. It wasn't because they wanted to kill women/children/non-combatants. That again is faulty reasoning, unless you are willing to say that Ds WANT to kill those same people in Afghanistan.

Really...then why do many of those same people still support the war in Iraq, even after they found out none of those weapons they were warned about and frightened about, were there? Why aren't they furious over being lied to? Why aren't they shamed and guilty and upset over the loss of life?

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 12:59 PM
Yep 25% still support the war and the way bush is running it....
How many of those do you think are liberals ?

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:01 PM
Really...then why do many of those same people still support the war in Iraq, even after they found out none of those weapons they were warned about and frightened about, were there? Why aren't they furious over being lied to? Why aren't they shamed and guilty and upset over the loss of life?
Because they believe that those killing innocents purposefully in Iraq are those we are fighting, and that they are the equal of those who attacked us in NYC, and that the cause is just because of that.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:04 PM
Yep 25% still support the war and the way bush is running it....
How many of those do you think are liberals ?
But do they support it because, as you said earlier, they "want" to kill women/children/non-combatants? If so. How is it that support here shows a "want" to do such, but support in Afghanistan doesn't? And how many times have you heard the leadership say, "We are killing lots of babies, and that is why we must stay in Iraq!"?

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 01:04 PM
Because they believe that those killing innocents purposefully in Iraq are those we are fighting, and that they are the equal of those who attacked us in NYC, and that the cause is just because of that.

Damo, neither you nor I know what every one of them believes. We both have our suspicions, and we are probably both right, because they are most likely not monolithic. However, I would be more than willing to bet that more of them are of the mindset I describe, rather than the run of the mill fool who has no clue what is going on, that you describe.

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 01:05 PM
But do they support it because, as you said earlier, they "want" to kill women/children/non-combatants? If so. How is it that support here shows a "want" to do such, but support in Afghanistan doesn't? And how many times have you heard the leadership say, "We are killing lots of babies, and that is why we must stay in Iraq!"?

Morally, how much of a differnece would you say there was, between "wanting to kill lots of babies" and being completely indifferent to the fact that babies are being killed?

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 01:08 PM
But do they support it because, as you said earlier, they "want" to kill women/children/non-combatants? If so. How is it that support here shows a "want" to do such, but support in Afghanistan doesn't? And how many times have you heard the leadership say, "We are killing lots of babies, and that is why we must stay in Iraq!"?

darn! you are getting a case of asshattedness it would appear.


Sorry, hope you get better soon.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:11 PM
Morally, how much of a differnece would you say there was, between "wanting to kill lots of babies" and being completely indifferent to the fact that babies are being killed?
And that same could apply to the "pro-choicers" that I put forward earlier. The idea that they are willing to allow a necessary evil, or indifferent towards it, in either the case of Afghanistan or Iraq, does not mean that they "want" it in either case.

Saying that it does mean that they "want" it to happen has been what I have rejected in this thread and given, what I believe is valid, reason to reject that idea.

I have met zero people or seen zero that actually want to kill all the children in Iraq. While I would say that some of them probably do exist, and have stated so earlier, it is clearly not what the vast majority of those who support the action "want" to happen

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:12 PM
darn! you are getting a case of asshattedness it would appear.


Sorry, hope you get better soon.
Right, IMO, a person who says that those who support Iraq "want" to kill babies is simply emoting all over. I have given a clear indication that very few indeed "want" to kill children in Iraq.

Nor should it be taken to mean that I support the action in Iraq because I can place myself in the shoes of another or understand the difference between a want and what is seen as an unfortunate necessity while fighting a just battle.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 01:24 PM
But my point Damo is that they don't CARE if children are being killed as long as they can have their pound of lfesh.

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 01:24 PM
And that same could apply to the "pro-choicers" that I put forward earlier. The idea that they are willing to allow a necessary evil, or indifferent towards it, in either the case of Afghanistan or Iraq, does not mean that they "want" it in either case.

Saying that it does mean that they "want" it to happen has been what I have rejected in this thread and given, what I believe is valid, reason to reject that idea.

I have met zero people or seen zero that actually want to kill all the children in Iraq. While I would say that some of them probably do exist, and have stated so earlier, it is clearly not what the vast majority of those who support the action "want" to happen

No it really can't apply to pro-choicers. A three week clump of cells is not a four year old child, terrified, starving, and then burned to death.

Depraved indifference is no different than "wanting" someone to die. If you allow actions that you know will kill, even if you do not actively "want" those deaths, but cannot be bothered to NOT want them, but rather, are indifferent to them, then those deaths are on your conscious. My opinion about this is not going to change. When 90% of the population was for Gulf War I, (or so it is now claimed), then there was far too much indifference to the death it would cause. But it was a spectacle in the truest sense of the word, wasn't it? And it made CNN didn't it?

Cypress
06-08-2007, 01:27 PM
It isn't. We invaded Iraq because many believed that they would provide to terrorists weapons that they were afraid of.

That's been unequivocably proven false. Saddam never did, and most likely never would supply weapons to al qaeda, or funadmentalist sunni jihaddists. The american intelligence communities reporting is unequivocable about that. In fact, many experts and anti-war people pointed that out before bush invaded. Saddam considered the international jihaddists his enemy. He NEVER gave them support. And they hated him too.



It wasn't because they wanted to kill women/children/non-combatants.

The war was about oil, and establishing a pro-american proxy state sitting on top of 200 billion barrels of oil. Bush decided that he was willing to tolerate tens of thousands civilians be killed, for that reason. A reason he chose not to publically share with the rest of us. He made up a phony reason to invade, instead.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 01:27 PM
And it made CNN didn't it?
//
and George wanted this war to "make" Fox, to repay all the free republican broadcast time.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:28 PM
But my point Damo is that they don't CARE if children are being killed as long as they can have their pound of lfesh.
If that was your point then why did you say "want" to kill them. I have quoted that word throughout. There is a difference between ambivalence and a want, as there is between a "necessary evil" and ambivalence. To say that they all "want" to kill them is inaccurate and has been my point throughout this thread.

Much like those who are against abortion saying that pro-choicers "want" to kill all those "babies". It is the emotive and reactionary argument that is not based in reason.

Battleborne
06-08-2007, 01:29 PM
LOL

He's doomed.

But, wasps, freak me. Far more than bees. So, I think I would have killed it too. If I had the guts to. More likely, I would have started screaming until some man came along to investigate. I feel, that's really what they're here for.


In Nevada we call em' 'Meat Bees' those little buggers hurt like hell...so may I suggest ya swat em' really hard...then pray to' Buddah' for forgiveness!

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 01:30 PM
That's been unequivocably proven false. Saddam never did, and most likely never would supply weapons to al qaeda, or funadmentalist sunni jihaddists. The american intelligence communities reporting is unequivocable about that. In fact, many experts and anti-war people pointed that out before bush invaded. Saddam considered the international jihaddists his enemy. He NEVER gave them support. And they hated him too.




The war was about oil, and establishing a pro-american proxy state sitting on top of 200 billion barrels of oil. Bush decided that he was willing to tolerate tens of thousands civilians be killed, for that reason. A reason he chose not to publically share with the rest of us. He made up a phony reason to invade, instead.

Yes, exactly. Now, did Bush "want" to kill tens of thousands of civilians (perhaps hundreds of thousands though)? Who the f knows? Who the f cares?

He didn't care if he killed them. He was indifferent to it. What he "wanted' therefore, becomes irrelevant!

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 01:30 PM
The war was about oil, and establishing a pro-american proxy state sitting on top of 200 billion barrels of oil. Bush decided that he was willing to tolerate tens of thousands civilians be killed, for that reason. A reason he chose not to publically share with the rest of us. He made up a phony reason to invade, instead.
//

I believe this to be the truth of the cause of the Iraq war as well.
then there is also the fact of what has happened to oil company profits since Bush's war started.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:33 PM
That's been unequivocably proven false. Saddam never did, and most likely never would supply weapons to al qaeda, or funadmentalist sunni jihaddists. The american intelligence communities reporting is unequivocable about that. In fact, many experts and anti-war people pointed that out before bush invaded. Saddam considered the international jihaddists his enemy. He NEVER gave them support. And they hated him too.




The war was about oil, and establishing a pro-american proxy state sitting on top of 200 billion barrels of oil. Bush decided that he was willing to tolerate tens of thousands civilians be killed, for that reason. A reason he chose not to publically share with the rest of us. He made up a phony reason to invade, instead.

The question was about those who supported the war, not about the opinion of the motive for those in the leadership, or of Bush in particular.

Do you really think Hillary thought, "Well, we need the oil, I'll vote for it!"? I think she thought that Saddam might supply terrorists, even if he didn't like them, to get at what he thought was a larger enemy, the US. But then, just because I oppose her politically doesn't mean that I think she is "evil" and therefore assign motivation that would be described as "evil". I wouldn't say her vote meant that she "wanted" to kill children in Iraq because she voted for action in Iraq.

I would say that she and the Congress used an end-run on the constitution to avoid Declaration and therefore pass responsibility for their vote on to others. I would not say that she seriously wanted to kill babies in Iraq, but now doesn't.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 01:33 PM
Umm damo I think I let the want slide in from some of your rhetoric, but it is irrelevant Want or promote the cause of their deats the result is the same.
Dead children are dead children. And for some strange reason our troops had orders not to keep count of "colateral casualties"....

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 01:35 PM
The question was about those who supported the war, not about the opinion of the motive for those in the leadership, or of Bush in particular.

Do you really think Hillary thought, "Well, we need the oil, I'll vote for it!"? I think she thought that Saddam might supply terrorists, even if he didn't like them, to get at what he thought was a larger enemy, the US. But then, just because I oppose her politically doesn't mean that I think she is "evil" and therefore assign motivation that would be described as "evil". I wouldn't say her vote meant that she "wanted" to kill children in Iraq because she voted for action in Iraq.

I would say that she and the Congress used an end-run on the constitution to avoid Declaration and therefore pass responsibility for their vote on to others. I would not say that she seriously wanted to kill babies in Iraq, but now doesn't.



So now you belittle the fearmongering and mob spirit that got us into this war ?

Are you sure you are not still a closet war supporter ?

Battleborne
06-08-2007, 01:36 PM
The war was about oil, and establishing a pro-american proxy state sitting on top of 200 billion barrels of oil. Bush decided that he was willing to tolerate tens of thousands civilians be killed, for that reason. A reason he chose not to publically share with the rest of us. He made up a phony reason to invade, instead.
//

I believe this to be the truth of the cause of the Iraq war as well.
then there is also the fact of what has happened to oil company profits since Bush's war started.

I agree somewhat...GW was lead astray..albeit taking out Sadaam was a good bet..Personally if I had been in charge I would have hit Iran and Syria...they were and still are the biggest 'Threat'..imho

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 01:37 PM
The question was about those who supported the war, not about the opinion of the motive for those in the leadership, or of Bush in particular.

Do you really think Hillary thought, "Well, we need the oil, I'll vote for it!"? I think she thought that Saddam might supply terrorists, even if he didn't like them, to get at what he thought was a larger enemy, the US. But then, just because I oppose her politically doesn't mean that I think she is "evil" and therefore assign motivation that would be described as "evil". I wouldn't say her vote meant that she "wanted" to kill children in Iraq because she voted for action in Iraq.

I would say that she and the Congress used an end-run on the constitution to avoid Declaration and therefore pass responsibility for their vote on to others. I would not say that she seriously wanted to kill babies in Iraq, but now doesn't.

Oh for God sakes Damo, you are as thick as rock. She wanted to be president! She and her advisors believe that a woman, especially, cannot afford to leave themselves open to the "weak on defense" charge. So she voted for the war. She didn't even read the goddamned intelligence report, but rather was "briefed on it". None of them did. because these were political decisions for some, and $$$$$$$$ decisions for other whores.

She didn't "want to kill babies in Iraq". She was "willing" to in order to reach her goals. Same as bush. You call that whatever you want to call it, but in my book that is some evil shit.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:39 PM
Umm damo I think I let the want slide in from some of your rhetoric, but it is irrelevant Want or promote the cause of their deats the result is the same.
Dead children are dead children. And for some strange reason our troops had orders not to keep count of "colateral casualties"....
Then we must apply them equally. The "libs" "want" to kill babies in Afghanistan. I heard them supporting it just the other day in the "debate".

Cypress
06-08-2007, 01:40 PM
Yes, exactly. Now, did Bush "want" to kill tens of thousands of civilians (perhaps hundreds of thousands though)? Who the f knows? Who the f cares?

He didn't care if he killed them. He was indifferent to it. What he "wanted' therefore, becomes irrelevant!


Bingo. "Wanting" to kill civilians and babies is irrelevant. Except in choosing the length of a criminal prison sentence. It's the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.

When you commit manslaughter, there was no intention or "want" to kill. Bush consiously decided he was going to let tens of thousands die. In a war that was based on lies.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 01:40 PM
Damo is still a con at heart, a small L that is pissed at Bush for messing up their sandbox.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:41 PM
Oh for God sakes Damo, you are as thick as rock. She wanted to be president! She and her advisors believe that a woman, especially, cannot afford to leave themselves open to the "weak on defense" charge. So she voted for the war. She didn't even read the goddamned intelligence report, but rather was "briefed on it". None of them did. because these were political decisions for some, and $$$$$$$$ decisions for other whores.

She didn't "want to kill babies in Iraq". She was "willing" to in order to reach her goals. Same as bush. You call that whatever you want to call it, but in my book that is some evil shit.
And in that, I would agree. The only thing I objected to was the word "want". I have met no "cons" who want to kill babies in Iraq. Just as I have met no pro-choicer who "wants" to kill babies in the womb.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 01:41 PM
And I suppose all the con candidates reflect the attitudes of all the cons Damo ?
which would mean you support the war.

Battleborne
06-08-2007, 01:43 PM
Oh for God sakes Damo, you are as thick as rock. She wanted to be president! She and her advisors believe that a woman, especially, cannot afford to leave themselves open to the "weak on defense" charge. So she voted for the war. She didn't even read the goddamned intelligence report, but rather was "briefed on it". None of them did. because these were political decisions for some, and $$$$$$$$ decisions for other whores.



Head outta the sand...Hillary is nothing more than a opportunist..she goes whichever way the wind blows...she is willing to do whatever it takes to get the Presidency..she is on female hormones from the 'Get Go'..not the right female to support...try Elizabeth Dole..if ya really want to support a righteous female!

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 01:43 PM
Then we must apply them equally. The "libs" "want" to kill babies in Afghanistan. I heard them supporting it just the other day in the "debate".

Many of them don't give a rat's ass about babies in Afghanistan Damo. And if you are talking about anybody inside the beltway, politicians, pundits, writers, whatever, they all have a stake in this, a $$ stake, and their opinions are worthless, and you can bet that they don't care. They don't want dead babies, what they want is another lexus, a better townhouse in Georgetown, and most of all, better invites to A-list DC parties. They don't care about dead babies in Afghanistan. They care whether or not Bob Woodward personally greets them at the next party.

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 01:44 PM
Oh for God sakes Damo, you are as thick as rock. She wanted to be president! She and her advisors believe that a woman, especially, cannot afford to leave themselves open to the "weak on defense" charge. So she voted for the war. She didn't even read the goddamned intelligence report, but rather was "briefed on it". None of them did. because these were political decisions for some, and $$$$$$$$ decisions for other whores.



Head outta the sand...Hillary is nothing more than a opportunist..she goes whichever way the wind blows...she is willing to do whatever it takes to get the Presidency..she is on female hormones from the 'Get Go'..not the right female to support...try Elizabeth Dole..if ya really want to support a righteous female!


Elizabeth Dole is a whore.

Cancel7
06-08-2007, 01:45 PM
And in that, I would agree. The only thing I objected to was the word "want". I have met no "cons" who want to kill babies in Iraq. Just as I have met no pro-choicer who "wants" to kill babies in the womb.

Ok.

Cypress
06-08-2007, 01:47 PM
I agree somewhat...GW was lead astray..albeit taking out Sadaam was a good bet..Personally if I had been in charge I would have hit Iran and Syria...they were and still are the biggest 'Threat'..imho


Whoa there, John Wayne. I thought you worked in counter terrorism, and had a grasp of the intricacies of the middle east?

Let me explain to you, before you allow yourself to get lied into another unneccessary war.

Syria is run by a secular bathiist regime. They hate fundamentalist international sunni jihaddists as much as Saddam did.

Iran is a shia theocracy. They'd just as soon cut the head off a sunni funadmentalist (e.g., Al Qaeda), as give him the time of day.

Iran and Syria have not supported, nor is it likely they will support, attacks on the US by Al Qaeda, or other sunni fundamentalist groups.

Do Iran and Syria pose a threat to Israel? Yes. Those nations support Hamas and Hezbollah. Nationalist groups which have regional political goals. They're not going to attack Kansas City, unless Bush continues to make more enemies for us. But, Israel can defend itself. So calm down and have a beer.

:clink:

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:48 PM
And I suppose all the con candidates reflect the attitudes of all the cons Damo ?
which would mean you support the war.
I was speaking to those who supported action in Iraq and used one who did as an example. I even used one that I don't like, as I would be "more likely" to assign evil motive to those whom I don't like, at least in the minds of many I would be...

I wasn't speaking to all "libs". People asked me about those who support the war now, not about what I thought of Bush's promotion of the war. Those are two different topics. I have stated why I thought Bush went into Iraq long ago, and it had nothing to do with WMD. I even stated it when they were ramping up for that war. I believe it was because they believed that surrounding a pro-western nation like Iran with pro-western "democracies" would cause a domino effect.

Shoot, if you read the neo-con website they pretty much talk of spreading it exactly this way.

Now as for the question when I used Hillary as an example I was speaking to the question of those in the leadership who promoted the war.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:52 PM
Damo is still a con at heart, a small L that is pissed at Bush for messing up their sandbox.
I have never been ashamed of being conservative. These statements are retarded. I am a republican, I have been since I first voted, and continue to be even though I don't like Bush and think he has hurt the party.

Cypress
06-08-2007, 01:53 PM
The question was about those who supported the war, not about the opinion of the motive for those in the leadership, or of Bush in particular.

Do you really think Hillary thought, "Well, we need the oil, I'll vote for it!"? I think she thought that Saddam might supply terrorists, even if he didn't like them, to get at what he thought was a larger enemy, the US. But then, just because I oppose her politically doesn't mean that I think she is "evil" and therefore assign motivation that would be described as "evil". I wouldn't say her vote meant that she "wanted" to kill children in Iraq because she voted for action in Iraq.

I would say that she and the Congress used an end-run on the constitution to avoid Declaration and therefore pass responsibility for their vote on to others. I would not say that she seriously wanted to kill babies in Iraq, but now doesn't.


I would call Hillary's vote immoral, and evil. She was an enabler of Bush, for all intents and purposes.

But, who was it running around the country between August 2002 and March 2003, giving speeches, stoking fear, and ginning up the invasion of Iraq? The Democrats? Nope. Bush, Cheney, and the rightwing media.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:53 PM
So now you belittle the fearmongering and mob spirit that got us into this war ?

Are you sure you are not still a closet war supporter ?
I belittled that long ago. I stated on p.com that the "WMD" were no such MD Weapons and gave examples of how inefficient they were at killing. I stated that this was fear and emotive reasoning and that we should not go if there was not a vote for declaration.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 01:58 PM
Bingo. "Wanting" to kill civilians and babies is irrelevant. Except in choosing the length of a criminal prison sentence. It's the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.

When you commit manslaughter, there was no intention or "want" to kill. Bush consiously decided he was going to let tens of thousands die. In a war that was based on lies.
My point was, I objected to uscit saying that "cons" WANT to kill babies in Iraq. That is all I have been saying from the beginning. Now he says that it is unimportant that he used the word "want" but argued for its relevance throughout the thread up to this point.

Nobody is out there promoting the war because they want to kill Iraqi children. They may be ambivalent, the war IMO is immoral for many reasons, and wrong constitutionally as well. But they aren't motivated by their wish to see collateral damage.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 01:59 PM
Diversion, simply diversion.

Cypress
06-08-2007, 02:01 PM
My point was, I objected to uscit saying that "cons" WANT to kill babies in Iraq. That is all I have been saying from the beginning. Now he says that it is unimportant that he used the word "want" but argued for its relevance throughout the thread up to this point.

Nobody is out there promoting the war because they want to kill Iraqi children. They may be ambivalent, the war IMO is immoral for many reasons, and wrong constitutionally as well. But they aren't motivated by their wish to see collateral damage.


I've never suggested that Cheney and Bush are sitting around the oval office, high-fiving each other when reports of civilian casualties come in.

All I've ever suggested, is that Bush conciously decided that he could easily tolerate the deaths of tens, or hundreds of thousands of civilians, so he could establish a pro-american proxy state in Iraq. A nation that was not a significant threat to us, and had nothing to do with the "War on Terror"/

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 02:02 PM
Damo from scanning back it appears that you inserted the WANT part to defuse my agrument and now you blame it on me....Yep you are a con.

congrats on a successful strawman venture.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 02:04 PM
I've never suggested that Cheney and Bush are sitting around the oval office, high-fiving each other when reports of civilian casualties come in.

All I've ever suggested, is that Bush conciously decided that he could easily tolerate the deaths of tens, or hundreds of thousands of civilians, so he could establish a pro-american proxy state in Iraq. A nation that was not a significant threat to us, and had nothing to do with the "War on Terror"/
Then we agree. I was arguing with uscit about his use of "want" when describing civilian casualties and "cons".

Damocles
06-08-2007, 02:08 PM
Not wanting to harm an unborn child but to kill many innocent women and children with bombs and bullets is a Con thing.

Ahem!... Note the actionable verb "wanting" in this sentence...


Damo from scanning back it appears that you inserted the WANT part to defuse my agrument and now you blame it on me....Yep you are a con.

congrats on a successful strawman venture.

So, scanning back I find that my objection had basis in that sentence and that you most definitely used it saying they don't "want" to harm unborn children, but do to kill children with bombs and bullets....

Battleborne
06-08-2007, 02:10 PM
Whoa there, John Wayne. I thought you worked in counter terrorism, and had a grasp of the intricacies of the middle east?

Let me explain to you, before you allow yourself to get lied into another unneccessary war.

Syria is run by a secular bathiist regime. They hate fundamentalist international sunni jihaddists as much as Saddam did.

Iran is a shia theocracy. They'd just as soon cut the head off a sunni funadmentalist (e.g., Al Qaeda), as give him the time of day.

Iran and Syria have not supported, nor is it likely they will support, attacks on the US by Al Qaeda, or other sunni fundamentalist groups.

Do Iran and Syria pose a threat to Israel? Yes. Those nations support Hamas and Hezbollah. Nationalist groups which have regional political goals. They're not going to attack Kansas City, unless Bush continues to make more enemies for us. But, Israel can defend itself. So calm down and have a beer.

:clink:

Have a grasp on the ME conflict...what you stated above is for the most part true...alas we supported Saddam in the Iran conflict..did it have to do with Jimmy Carters nonsense...and failed policy hell ya..this does not exempt Dick Cheney/Rumsfeld from responsibilty also...they kissed up to Saddam because 'Iran' was on the 'Shit' list...two wrongs never make a right...But Iran,Iraq and Syria are all 'bed buddies' when it comes down to 'we against them'...get a grip dude!:clink:

Cypress
06-08-2007, 02:18 PM
But Iran,Iraq and Syria are all 'bed buddies' when it comes down to 'we against them'..

Syria, Iran, and Iraq are, and have been historic blood enemies. They hate each other. The've fought each other in wars in the last two decades.

A clever president, with a nuanced, and knowledgable view of the middle east could exploit those historic rivalries.

Alas, we have a stupid chimpanzee in the Oval Office, who makes everything black and white. Us against them.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
Not wanting to harm an unborn child but to kill many innocent women and children with bombs and bullets is a Con thing.
Ahem!... Note the actionable verb "wanting" in this sentence...

Double Ahem, notice where it is in the sentence ?
Read it again for clarity please :D

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 02:31 PM
Have a grasp on the ME conflict...what you stated above is for the most part true...alas we supported Saddam in the Iran conflict..did it have to do with Jimmy Carters nonsense...and failed policy hell ya..this does not exempt Dick Cheney/Rumsfeld from responsibilty also...they kissed up to Saddam because 'Iran' was on the 'Shit' list...two wrongs never make a right...But Iran,Iraq and Syria are all 'bed buddies' when it comes down to 'we against them'...get a grip dude!:clink:

could have had something to do with Iran Contra. Selling weapons to an avowed emeny is treason you know.

also Regan and bush one took an official no comment stance on Sadams use of WMD's. I hardly think Carter the farter would have done that.
But that WMD use came in handy for little George.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
Not wanting to harm an unborn child but to kill many innocent women and children with bombs and bullets is a Con thing.
Ahem!... Note the actionable verb "wanting" in this sentence...

Double Ahem, notice where it is in the sentence ?
Read it again for clarity please :D
I did, it applies to both.

Not wanting to drive a car, but to drive a truck.... et al. The want covers both instances.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 02:33 PM
Umm I ran it by an English major and she disagrees with you Damo.
But then you know how those degreed types are ;)

Battleborne
06-08-2007, 02:36 PM
could have had something to do with Iran Contra. Selling weapons to an avowed emeny is treason you know.

also Regan and bush one took an official no comment stance on Sadams use of WMD's. I hardly think Carter the farter would have done that.
But that WMD use came in handy for little George.


and Iran/Contra had positive results getting the Hostages released..not like 'Jimmy's' fiasco 'cheap budget' on the rescue got alot of Special Op's dudes killed...and like 'under the table' stuff is all so new in warfare...this is why ya were a disgruntled Sgt...eh'???:pke:

Damocles
06-08-2007, 02:37 PM
Umm I ran it by an English major and she disagrees with you Damo.
But then you know how those degreed types are ;)
I was a double major, Math and English. It applies as the actionable verb to both infinitive verbs in the sentence. Had you said something like this:

"Not wanting to harm babies in the womb, but killing people..."

Then it would not apply to both because there are two actionable verbs in that sentence.

If you say it with two infinitives...

"Not wanting to drive an SUV but to drive a pickup truck." The actionable verb applies to both infinitives.

Damocles
06-08-2007, 02:43 PM
Either way, all you had to do was say, "I didn't mean that they wanted to kill babies." Instead you argued that they do.

uscitizen
06-08-2007, 02:51 PM
and Iran/Contra had positive results getting the Hostages released..not like 'Jimmy's' fiasco 'cheap budget' on the rescue got alot of Special Op's dudes killed...and like 'under the table' stuff is all so new in warfare...this is why ya were a disgruntled Sgt...eh'???:pke:


So treason to get the hostages free is reasonable to you ?

But then there is the deal that CIA guy Bush made in Paris with Barney Sader (not sure on that name)

Cypress
06-08-2007, 03:06 PM
and Iran/Contra had positive results getting the Hostages released..not like 'Jimmy's' fiasco 'cheap budget' on the rescue got alot of Special Op's dudes killed...and like 'under the table' stuff is all so new in warfare...this is why ya were a disgruntled Sgt...eh'???:pke:


Negotiating with and paying off terrorists emboldens them.

Breaking the law and undermining the constitution is treasonous. Reagan fucked this one all up.

IHateGovernment
06-08-2007, 03:55 PM
Poor Beefy's thread got hijacked. :(

Battleborne
06-08-2007, 04:09 PM
So treason to get the hostages free is reasonable to you ?

But then there is the deal that CIA guy Bush made in Paris with Barney Sader (not sure on that name)


Pa-lease look up the word 'Treason'...this does not in any way fit the definition...under handed dealings to get results...maybe... but treason is a ridiculous analogy...if you meant a analogy vs breaking this seldom used law!

Battleborne
06-08-2007, 04:13 PM
Negotiating with and paying off terrorists emboldens them.

Breaking the law and undermining the constitution is treasonous. Reagan fucked this one all up.


For once I would agree with you Cippie...this is what your ilk are doing as we speak...(I mean write!) and pa-lease as I told USC look up the definition of "Treason" what the Reagan Admin did was not Treason...albeit maybe stupid...but the Hostages came home!

Damocles
06-08-2007, 05:39 PM
Poor Beefy's thread got hijacked. :(
Yeah, I hijacked it good...


:hij: