Stupid Morality Question

Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...


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"/
 
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.
 
Cypress said:
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"/
Click to expand...
Then we agree. I was arguing with uscit about his use of "want" when describing civilian casualties and "cons".
 
uscitizen said:
Not wanting to harm an unborn child but to kill many innocent women and children with bombs and bullets is a Con thing.
Click to expand...

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

uscitizen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
Yes I do...

Cypress said:
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:
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
uscitizen said:
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
Click to expand...
I did, it applies to both.

Not wanting to drive a car, but to drive a truck.... et al. The want covers both instances.
 
Umm I ran it by an English major and she disagrees with you Damo.
But then you know how those degreed types are ;)
 
Ah Hah...

uscitizen said:
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.
Click to expand...


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:
 
uscitizen said:
Umm I ran it by an English major and she disagrees with you Damo.
But then you know how those degreed types are ;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Battleborne said:
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:
Click to expand...


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)
 
Battleborne said:
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:
Click to expand...


Negotiating with and paying off terrorists emboldens them.

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

uscitizen said:
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)
Click to expand...


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!
 
Well...

Cypress said:
Negotiating with and paying off terrorists emboldens them.

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


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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top