Stupid Morality Question

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"....
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...



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 ?
 
With this diatribe...

uscitizen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
uscitizen said:
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"....
Click to expand...
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".
 
Darla said:
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!
Click to expand...


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.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
And I suppose all the con candidates reflect the attitudes of all the cons Damo ?
which would mean you support the war.
 
Get your proverbial...

Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...


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!
 
Damocles said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Battleborne said:
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...


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!
Click to expand...


Elizabeth Dole is a whore.
 
Battleborne said:
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
Click to expand...


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:
 
uscitizen said:
And I suppose all the con candidates reflect the attitudes of all the cons Damo ?
which would mean you support the war.
Click to expand...
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.
 
uscitizen said:
Damo is still a con at heart, a small L that is pissed at Bush for messing up their sandbox.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
uscitizen said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top