Yawn, Bush's Suprise Visit to Iraq Today

You see, this exposes the double standard by which the American right seems to operate--you attempt to legitimize and justify your despicable position by claiming that there is a contingent within the US who would advocate for much harsher action in Iraq (meaning: pay far less attention to who gets killed ,where, why and how), yet you openly chastize the "barbarians" who target innocent men women and children through suicide bombings. You rely heavily on the historical abuse of Iraqi civilians by the Hussein regime and champion Freedom For All Iraqis, while at the same time openly admitting that you do not care if a million combatants or innocent civilians are to perish in this conflict.

You champion freedom for the Iraqis from under Hussein yet you contend that a million civilian deaths is of little concern to you. Like I said, you are a sick and despicable hypocrite.

How many Iraqi lives are worth each American one? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

This merely another version of Godwin's Law. First one to bring up Clinton when discussing the current administration loses their foothold in the discussion.

That being said, bad intel is bad intel. Whether Clinton had the same bad intel or not, it was bad intel. Bush just decided to spend billions and potentially kill a million people based on this bad intel.


If you want to invoke Clinton, let's talk about the consequences of each President's actions vis a vis this bad intel.

Point of FACT is Presidents make decisions based upon the best intel they have at the time a decision needs to be made.

Clinton reacted to the best intel he had and dropped bombs on Iraq.

GW, using the "same best intel" he had at the time was more aggressive since we had been attacked.

If we were attacked during Clintons admin, my guess is he may have acted differently than he did.

Would you agree?

But we weren't attacked by Iraq... how many times does this have to be repeated?

The fact that a group of terrorists flew a plane into our buildings, doesn't justify unrestrained warfare against whoever we want.

Cycloptichorn

Using words like "sick" and "despicable" to describe my position is just, in my opinion, ad hominem remarks. Unless you have interviewed me and you had the appropriate psychological credentials, I can't accept your diagnosis of "sick." And, "despicable" is just a personal opinion. It doesn't help prove the veracity of your position.

sick 1 (sk)
adj. sick·er, sick·est
1.
a. Suffering from or affected with a physical illness; ailing.
b. Of or for sick persons: sick wards.
c. Nauseated.
2.
a. Mentally ill or disturbed.
b. Unwholesome, morbid, or sadistic: a sick joke; a sick crime.
3. Defective; unsound: a sick economy.
4.
a. Deeply distressed; upset: sick with worry.
b. Disgusted; revolted.
c. Weary; tired: sick of it all.
d. Pining; longing: sick for his native land.
5.
a. In need of repairs: a sick ship.
b. Constituting an unhealthy environment for those working or residing within: a sick office building.
6. Unable to produce a profitable yield of crops: sick soil.
n. (used with a pl. verb)
Sick people considered as a group. Often used with the.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

This merely another version of Godwin's Law. First one to bring up Clinton when discussing the current administration loses their foothold in the discussion.

That being said, bad intel is bad intel. Whether Clinton had the same bad intel or not, it was bad intel. Bush just decided to spend billions and potentially kill a million people based on this bad intel.


If you want to invoke Clinton, let's talk about the consequences of each President's actions vis a vis this bad intel.

Point of FACT is Presidents make decisions based upon the best intel they have at the time a decision needs to be made.

Clinton reacted to the best intel he had and dropped bombs on Iraq.

GW, using the "same best intel" he had at the time was more aggressive since we had been attacked.

If we were attacked during Clintons admin, my guess is he may have acted differently than he did.

Would you agree?

But we weren't attacked by Iraq... how many times does this have to be repeated?

The fact that a group of terrorists flew a plane into our buildings, doesn't justify unrestrained warfare against whoever we want.

Cycloptichorn

I never said we were attacked by Iraq. Stop changing my words to fit your warped view of a serious issue.

We were not attacked by Iraq when Clinton launched his missles in 1999. Yet it makes no difference.

The point is a Presidnet will work with the best intel he has at the moment a decision has to be made, evenif the intel is wrong.

Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Clinton acted on bad intel, and you do not criticize him.

GW acted more aggressively BECAUSE WE WERE ATTACKED, again with bad intel, and you criticze.

This makes you a hypocrite

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

This merely another version of Godwin's Law. First one to bring up Clinton when discussing the current administration loses their foothold in the discussion.

That being said, bad intel is bad intel. Whether Clinton had the same bad intel or not, it was bad intel. Bush just decided to spend billions and potentially kill a million people based on this bad intel.


If you want to invoke Clinton, let's talk about the consequences of each President's actions vis a vis this bad intel.

Point of FACT is Presidents make decisions based upon the best intel they have at the time a decision needs to be made.

Clinton reacted to the best intel he had and dropped bombs on Iraq.

GW, using the "same best intel" he had at the time was more aggressive since we had been attacked.

If we were attacked during Clintons admin, my guess is he may have acted differently than he did.

Would you agree?

But we weren't attacked by Iraq... how many times does this have to be repeated?

The fact that a group of terrorists flew a plane into our buildings, doesn't justify unrestrained warfare against whoever we want.

Cycloptichorn

I never said we were attacked by Iraq. Stop changing my words to fit your warped view of a serious issue.

We were not attacked by Iraq when Clinton launched his missles in 1999. Yet it makes no difference.

The point is a Presidnet will work with the best intel he has at the moment a decision has to be made, evenif the intel is wrong.

Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Clinton acted on bad intel, and you do not criticize him.

GW acted more aggressively BECAUSE WE WERE ATTACKED, again with bad intel, and you criticze.

This makes you a hypocrite

Once again, I never criticzed Clinton, did I? Show me?

You 2 are the ones being unable or unwilling to be objective about it.

I supported Clintons decision in 1999, but I personally felt he needed to do more.

I supported GW's decision to enter into Iraq. However, I would have handled it differently than GW.

I believe that any President, will have better intel than I do. I believe that any President will take mesures to defend this Nation.

Your hypocracy is that you think Clinton had better intel than GW when in fat they had the same intel.

So, you are willing to excuse an excessive use of force by Bush becasue of bad intel, but remain critical of Clinton for using a fraction of the force, but using quite possibly the same bad intel?

candidone1 wrote:

So, you are willing to excuse an excessive use of force by Bush becasue of bad intel, but remain critical of Clinton for using a fraction of the force, but using quite possibly the same bad intel?

I never claimed that Clinton had different intel, and nor did Cy.
What thread are you reading?

owiyo: The point is a President will work with the best Intel he has at the moment a decision has to be made, even if the Intel is wrong.


You are spreading rumors that have been proven to be wrong. You need to read "all" the information about what Intel Bush had before he decided on his illegal war against Iraq; a country that never posed a threat to the US - by any means, except psychological. Also read the conditions the congress set as authority for Bush to attack Iraq. FYI none were met.

candidone1 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

So, you are willing to excuse an excessive use of force by Bush becasue of bad intel, but remain critical of Clinton for using a fraction of the force, but using quite possibly the same bad intel?

I never claimed that Clinton had different intel, and nor did Cy.
What thread are you reading?

At least I am not responding to myself!! :wink:

cicerone imposter wrote:

owiyo: The point is a President will work with the best Intel he has at the moment a decision has to be made, even if the Intel is wrong.


You are spreading rumors that have been proven to be wrong. You need to read "all" the information about what Intel Bush had before he decided on his illegal war against Iraq; a country that never posed a threat to the US - by any means, except psychological. Also read the conditions the congress set as authority for Bush to attack Iraq. FYI none were met.

Prove me wrong and show me Clinton had better, more accurate Intel than GW did at the time their initial decision was made.

Foofie wrote:

Using words like "sick" and "despicable" to describe my position is just, in my opinion, ad hominem remarks. Unless you have interviewed me and you had the appropriate psychological credentials, I can't accept your diagnosis of "sick." And, "despicable" is just a personal opinion. It doesn't help prove the veracity of your position.

Quote:

sick 1 (sk)
adj. sick·er, sick·est
1.
a. Suffering from or affected with a physical illness; ailing.
b. Of or for sick persons: sick wards.
c. Nauseated.
2.
a. Mentally ill or disturbed.
b. Unwholesome, morbid, or sadistic: a sick joke; a sick crime.
3. Defective; unsound: a sick economy.
4.
a. Deeply distressed; upset: sick with worry.
b. Disgusted; revolted.
c. Weary; tired: sick of it all.
d. Pining; longing: sick for his native land.
5.
a. In need of repairs: a sick ship.
b. Constituting an unhealthy environment for those working or residing within: a sick office building.
6. Unable to produce a profitable yield of crops: sick soil.
n. (used with a pl. verb)
Sick people considered as a group. Often used with the.

Source

"Sick" is not solely a medical or psychological state (of mind, or body), so drawing upon my apparent lack of credential is highly irrelevent. That I think you are "sick" is through the steadfast maintenence of the position that your primary concern for the welfare and well being for a person or group of persons lies in their nationality or country of origin. You appear to make this an issue of nationalism/nationality over humanism.

I see no difference between your stance and that of a Milosevic, a Nazi, a Hutu, or any group who justifies ethnic cleansing, or any crime against humanity, as a matter of the importance of one's nationality over one's inalienable rights as a human being--or one who justifies the killing of innocent people because it is "in the interest of the US". I reiterate, you claimed to not be worried about the possibility of a million people (innocents or combatants) being killed in the Iraq war.

Simply claiming that sick and dispicable don't prove the veracity of my argument is completely irrelevant, and merely a convenient way of turning what is almost a universally morally reprehensible view into another issue. Being ambivalent about the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people puts you in a proud company with a small group of inadmirable people in this world.

I believe what you might be referring to, relative to my level of concern, is the concept of "collective guilt." For example, some Jews, regarding the Holocaust, have argued over whether there is, or should be, collective guilt amongst Germans for the Nazi Holocaust. I don't subscribe to collective guilt for anyone. It was the concept of collective guilt that made for two-thousand years of anti-Semitism against Jews as "The Christ Killers."

I don't believe I should be part of any collective guilt, as a U.S. citizen, for what the administration does. Nor, can I accept that you, or anyone, could have the right to "assign" to me the moral imperative of "guilt."

You might not think you are referring to guilt, but with concern/caring/empathy comes guilt, if one's country is the cause of some suffering.

In my opinion, you are arguing, on one hand, the incorrectness of the administration's actions, and on the other hand, you are also arguing that those that don't "see" the incorrectness of the administration's actions" are tantamount to being morally repugnant. You are arguing two things. The inference is, I believe, if one doesn't want to accept the label of moral repugnancy, one must agree with you that the administration's actions are incorrect.

Therefore, in my most humble opinion, the methodology of the argument is cute, but specious.

I repeat your for your own recall, you stated unequivocally that you did not care if there were in fact a million deaths of either combatants or innocent civilians and you have justified your sick opinion with trivialities such as "sequence of empathy" and similar garbage.

Specious, cute, or otherwise, my indictment of your dispicable position is accurate.