2000 DEAD

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't understand what Freedom is, McG, if you think it is something that can be granted or put in by force.

Cycloptichorn

If you remove a brutal dictatorship from government, and then help the citizens set up free elections, how is that not really freedom?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
That would make more sense if the war were an operation to save a sick child instead of an abomination foisted upon the world by sick men.

Get a grip.

DD wrote:
If three firefighters are killed in a fire, do you send more in so that their deaths will have a purpose?

You might send more in to put out the fire so more people aren't killed by it. BTW, the firefighters you send in are dedicated professionals who were not forced to join the fire department, and who knew when they did join that they might fight deadly fires, and that is precisely the reason they did join. And if a bystander cheers the efforts of the firemen as they fight the flames, would you turn to him and ask why he didn't join the fire department? Wouldn't it make as much sense for him to turn to you and ask why you didn't become a CPA?

The other option, of course, is to let the fire run its course. Is that your suggestion at this point?

I might send in more firefighters for those reasons. That wasn't the reason I asked about, however. Which is the reason Bush and others have given for staying in Iraq. It's nonsense and an attempt to derail the real discussion of why we should remain in Iraq.

0 Replies

Watch out, Deb. If you call McG on his crap too many times he might start ignoring you. <sob, sob>

0 Replies

Quote:

If you remove a brutal dictatorship from government, and then help the citizens set up free elections, how is that not really freedom?

It's not real, that's why. There does not exist in the current Iraqi society a common drive to create a free system, one in which all men and women are equal, all religions are equal, etc.

You cannot just kick out the old government, state 'It's gonna be freedom around here from now on, boys' and then just expect things to work. They won't. Not for a long time. And how many lives will be lost in the process?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
You are building a nice strawman Deb.

I said, in response to Cycloptihorns comments about the dead enjoying freedom, "would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?"

How does that correlate to my "announcing that you WOULD sacrifice yourself for the cause"?

Because you announced that you would sacrifice yourself for the cause:

[quote]Let me ask you something... would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?

I would.

[/b]

BUT, you reneged on your announcement and declared that you would not sacrifice yourself for the cause, but you would cheer from the sidelines. Therefore, we are right back to where we began: If you think it's great that our AMERICAN soldiers are dying for Iraqi freedom, why aren't you willing to make the same sacrifice? You're merely one of those who applauds the cause so long as someone else is doing the dying.

McG wrote:

If I were an Iraqi ( I am not), and my children were Iraqi (they are not) and I lived in Iraq (which I do not), I would do everything in my power, including dying, to insure their freedom.

Do you understand that?

Yes. I understand. NOW you're saying IF you were an IRAQI, which you're not, THEN you would sacrifice yourself for Iraqi freedom. Likewise, IF our AMERICAN soldiers were IRAQI, which they're NOT, then would be okay for them to sacrifice themselves for Iraqi freedom.

So we're right back where we started: If you think it's great that our AMERICAN soldiers are dying for Iraqi freedom, why aren't you willing to make the same sacrifice? You're merely one of those who applauds the cause so long as someone else is doing the dying.

In summary: You said you WOULD sacrifice yourself for the cause; then you said it wasn't necessary to sacrifice yourself when you can cheer for the cause that other AMERICANS are dying for; and IF you were an Iraqi (instead of an American) THEN you would sacrifice yourself for the cause. Rolling Eyes

[/quote]

Maybe if you can get some twine you can hold all your straw in place. You continue to argue against what I have not said. Way to go!

If you wish to discuss what I actually said, we can continue. If you feel the need to continue building your big old strawman, I will sit over here and cheer you on.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't understand what Freedom is, McG, if you think it is something that can be granted or put in by force.

Cycloptichorn

Where did this come from?

You don't believe freedom can be granted or put in by force? It's surely not the only way, but it is definitely one way. Pull your heads down from the clouds Cyc.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Watch out, Deb. If you call McG on his crap too many times he might start ignoring you. <sob, sob>

Awww... Did I snub you once too often DD?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
That would make more sense if the war were an operation to save a sick child instead of an abomination foisted upon the world by sick men.

Get a grip.

DD wrote:
If three firefighters are killed in a fire, do you send more in so that their deaths will have a purpose?

You might send more in to put out the fire so more people aren't killed by it. BTW, the firefighters you send in are dedicated professionals who were not forced to join the fire department, and who knew when they did join that they might fight deadly fires, and that is precisely the reason they did join. And if a bystander cheers the efforts of the firemen as they fight the flames, would you turn to him and ask why he didn't join the fire department? Wouldn't it make as much sense for him to turn to you and ask why you didn't become a CPA?

The other option, of course, is to let the fire run its course. Is that your suggestion at this point?

I might send in more firefighters for those reasons. That wasn't the reason I asked about, however. Which is the reason Bush and others have given for staying in Iraq. It's nonsense and an attempt to derail the real discussion of why we should remain in Iraq.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here. What do you think is the "reason Bush and others have given for staying in Iraq"? What do you believe is "an attempt to derail the real discussion of why we should remain in Iraq"? Do you advocate "cut and run" at this point?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Watch out, Deb. If you call McG on his crap too many times he might start ignoring you. <sob, sob>

Awww... Did I snub you once too often DD?

Just pointing out your childishness, McG.

You keep saying that Deb has created a strawman, but you are the one that conflated the arguments of personal involvement and invading Iraq.

0 Replies

No, Deb has taken a single statement I made in answering a post out of context and has made a giant issue out of it. She has constructed a fine strawman and she knows it. But, because she is cornered on it, she refuses to acknowledge her mistake and move on. Nothing new.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
That would make more sense if the war were an operation to save a sick child instead of an abomination foisted upon the world by sick men.

Get a grip.

DD wrote:
If three firefighters are killed in a fire, do you send more in so that their deaths will have a purpose?

You might send more in to put out the fire so more people aren't killed by it. BTW, the firefighters you send in are dedicated professionals who were not forced to join the fire department, and who knew when they did join that they might fight deadly fires, and that is precisely the reason they did join. And if a bystander cheers the efforts of the firemen as they fight the flames, would you turn to him and ask why he didn't join the fire department? Wouldn't it make as much sense for him to turn to you and ask why you didn't become a CPA?

The other option, of course, is to let the fire run its course. Is that your suggestion at this point?

I might send in more firefighters for those reasons. That wasn't the reason I asked about, however. Which is the reason Bush and others have given for staying in Iraq. It's nonsense and an attempt to derail the real discussion of why we should remain in Iraq.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here. What do you think is the "reason Bush and others have given for staying in Iraq"? What do you believe is "an attempt to derail the real discussion of why we should remain in Iraq"? Do you advocate "cut and run" at this point?

"Each loss of life is heartbreaking. And the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and lay the foundation of peace by spreading freedom." - GW Bush.

I read that as "American lives have been lost so we must sacrifice more American lives to give the earlier sacrifices meaning."

With the passing of the new Iraqi constitution, we've already lost. Current government or revolutionary government - either one will create a theocracy.

I say we need to do it right or not do it at all. If we don't have the force available to lock that country down tight and eliminate the insurgency once and for all, then we ought to get the hell out of the way.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
If you remove a brutal dictatorship from government, and then help the citizens set up free elections, how is that not really freedom?

It's not real, that's why.

In those cases where it works, of course it's real.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There does not exist in the current Iraqi society a common drive to create a free system, one in which all men and women are equal, all religions are equal, etc.

You cannot just kick out the old government, state 'It's gonna be freedom around here from now on, boys' and then just expect things to work. They won't. Not for a long time.

Democracy isn't some American product like Coca Cola that no one wants unless we force it down their throats. Lots of people want Democracy.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And how many lives will be lost in the process?

This was not the motive behind the invasion, but there are people who think that democracy is worth loss of life to achieve or defend. The bottom line, though you deny it, is that you don't really care much whether they achieve democracy or not. Some people think that freedom is worth almost anything.

0 Replies

McG: I have put your own written words before your very eyes to support everything I said. Shall we start again:

True or False: We are discussing 2000 American deaths--the high cost in American lives for alleged freedom in Iraq.

True or False: McG believes dying for the freedom of others (in Iraq) is a worthy cause.

True or False: McG believes AMERICAN soldiers dying for Iraqi freedom is a worthy cause.

True or False: McG supports the loss of AMERICAN lives as the high price we have to pay for Iraqi freedom.

True or False: Upon asking who would sacrifice himself for the cause of freedom, McG announced, "I would."

True or False: When asked why he has NOT sacrificed himself for the cause of freedom, McG announced, through analogies, that he doesn't have to sacrifice himself for the cause because other people are doing the sacrificing while he cheers them on.

True or False: McG would NOT sacrifice his own American life for Iraqi freedom because he's not an Iraqi.

True or False: McG applauds the cause so long as someone other than himself is doing the dying.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

No, Deb has taken a single statement I made in answering a post out of context and has made a giant issue out of it. She has constructed a fine strawman and she knows it. But, because she is cornered on it, she refuses to acknowledge her mistake and move on. Nothing new.

What an extraordinary projection of your own behavior.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Iraqis have been dying at a far higher rate than Americans. How is what we're doing show we value their lives?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Tree fiddy.

Nice. Reminds me of my favorite Chris Rock quote:

Quote:
How much for one Rib?

McG:

Quote:
So what price would you place on freedom for the Iraqi's? It seems that you value American lives more than Iraqi lives. Is that true? Do you belive that no American lives should be sacrificed for the freedom of others?

I value all the lives the same. But two points:

1. I haven't seen any Iraqis sacrificing their lives to protect my freedom lately;

and

2. We were not invited. And the freedom that we brought is no good to the 50k dead people, is it?

You should be asking, how many dead Iraqis is worth Iraqi freedom? Because this is much more accurate.

Cycloptichorn

McGentrix wrote:

So, instead of focusing on those that are still alive and whether they are free, you would concentrate only on the dead and whether they appreciate it?

Let me ask you something... would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?

I would.

This is the conversation Deb. Can you follow it? See how context makes all the difference? See how by leaving out the first paragraph of my response you have changed what I said into what you wanted me to say?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

This was not the motive behind the invasion, but there are people who think that democracy is worth loss of life to achieve or defend. The bottom line, though you deny it, is that you don't really care much whether they achieve democracy or not. Some people think that freedom is worth almost anything.

Brandon: Let's not discuss what "some people think." Let's discuss what YOU think.

Do believe that Iraqi freedom (installing a religious-political Islamic regime in Iraq) is worth the loss of 2000 American lives and counting? Would you sacrifice YOUR life for the cause? If so, why aren't you serving our country in accordance with your beliefs and doing your share of the sacrificing?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
That would make more sense if the war were an operation to save a sick child instead of an abomination foisted upon the world by sick men.

Get a grip.

DD wrote:
If three firefighters are killed in a fire, do you send more in so that their deaths will have a purpose?

You might send more in to put out the fire so more people aren't killed by it. BTW, the firefighters you send in are dedicated professionals who were not forced to join the fire department, and who knew when they did join that they might fight deadly fires, and that is precisely the reason they did join. And if a bystander cheers the efforts of the firemen as they fight the flames, would you turn to him and ask why he didn't join the fire department? Wouldn't it make as much sense for him to turn to you and ask why you didn't become a CPA?

The other option, of course, is to let the fire run its course. Is that your suggestion at this point?

I might send in more firefighters for those reasons. That wasn't the reason I asked about, however. Which is the reason Bush and others have given for staying in Iraq. It's nonsense and an attempt to derail the real discussion of why we should remain in Iraq.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here. What do you think is the "reason Bush and others have given for staying in Iraq"? What do you believe is "an attempt to derail the real discussion of why we should remain in Iraq"? Do you advocate "cut and run" at this point?

"Each loss of life is heartbreaking. And the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and lay the foundation of peace by spreading freedom." - GW Bush.

I read that as "American lives have been lost so we must sacrifice more American lives to give the earlier sacrifices meaning."

With the passing of the new Iraqi constitution, we've already lost. Current government or revolutionary government - either one will create a theocracy.

I say we need to do it right or not do it at all. If we don't have the force available to lock that country down tight and eliminate the insurgency once and for all, then we ought to get the hell out of the way.

Clearly there is a great divide between what the President said and your faulty interpretation of same. What Bush is saying is we should complete the mission, and it is by completing the mission that we best honor the sacrifice of the troops who have died. He did not say that the purpose of remaining is to honor the sacrifice of the fallen troops; rather, the purpose is to "complete the mission." Doing so does not alter what the mission is.

Which is not to say I don't agree with your last sentence.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

This was not the motive behind the invasion, but there are people who think that democracy is worth loss of life to achieve or defend. The bottom line, though you deny it, is that you don't really care much whether they achieve democracy or not. Some people think that freedom is worth almost anything.

Brandon: Let's not discuss what "some people think." Let's discuss what YOU think.

Do believe that Iraqi freedom (installing a religious-political Islamic regime in Iraq) is worth the loss of 2000 American lives and counting? Would you sacrifice YOUR life for the cause? If so, why aren't you serving our country in accordance with your beliefs and doing your share of the sacrificing?

1. Democracy in Iraq was not the reason for the invasion.

2. You cannot disprove my ideas by demonstrating that I have character flaws. It's illogical.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Iraqis have been dying at a far higher rate than Americans. How is what we're doing show we value their lives?

You're NOT paying attention to the CONTEXT, McG:

McG wrote:

So what price would you place on freedom for the Iraqi's? It seems that you value American lives more than Iraqi lives. Is that true? Do you belive that no American lives should be sacrificed for the freedom of others?

CONTEXT: We are talking about the PRICE (2000 AMERICAN LIVES) for Iraqi freedom. YOU specifically asked Cycloptichorn "Do you belive [sic] that no American lives should be sacrificed for the freedom of others?"

We are discussing the SACRIFICE of AMERICAN lives for the (alleged) freedom of the Iraqi people. Stay with that point, McG:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I value all the lives the same. But two points:

1. I haven't seen any Iraqis sacrificing their lives to protect my freedom lately;

and

2. We were not invited. And the freedom that we brought is no good to the 50k dead people, is it?

You should be asking, how many dead Iraqis is worth Iraqi freedom? Because this is much more accurate.

Cycloptichorn

AGAIN, Cycloptichorn was responding to your query whether Americans should sacrifice their lives for Iraqi freedom. What good is freedom to those who are DEAD? And you responded by focusing on the point that the DEAD willingly sacrifice themselves for the freedom of those who are still alive, e.g., their children, who are allowed to live free. You announced that you WOULD sacrifice yourself for the cause:

McGentrix wrote:

So, instead of focusing on those that are still alive and whether they are free, you would concentrate only on the dead and whether they appreciate it?

Let me ask you something... would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?

I would.

YOU SAID YOU WOULD sacrifice your life for the cause of freedom.

McG wrote:

This is the conversation Deb. Can you follow it? See how context makes all the difference? See how by leaving out the first paragraph of my response you have changed what I said into what you wanted me to say?

We are talking about the SACRIFICE of American lives for Iraqi freedom and you announced that you WOULD willingly sacrifice your life for the cause--for the freedom of those still living. The first paragraph doesn't change the context at all. You were saying that we can't focus on the dead because the DEAD willingly died for the freedom of others--you announced that YOU WOULD sacrifice your own life for the cause of freedom.

Unless you're saying that you deliberately LIED about your own willingness to sacrifice your life for freedom to fraudulently bolster a point in your argument, I understood the context perfectly. If you did lie, let us know now.

It's your inconsistencies and hypocrisies throughout this entire thread that you are trying wiggle out of now. If you still assert that I misunderstood the context of our discussions, go back and answer the true or false questions so we can obtain a TRUE understanding of your current position and we can start again.

0 Replies

I'll not let you get away with trying to pigeon hole me into some position I didn't take Deb. I was specifically speaking of the dead Iraqi's and whether they believed there deaths were in vain.

You are trying very hard to take what I said and make it mean something else.

I am fortunate enough to live in the freest country in the world. My freedom, and my childrens freedoms have already been paid for by the blood of others. Were this not the case, I would indeed be fighting to the fullest of my ability to guarantee a free future for my children. Like many Iraqi's are, and have.

You apparently are unable to comprehend what I have been saying in this thread. Perhaps that's my fault. Maybe I haven't explained it as well as I could. But on the other hand, I believe you are purposefully being obstinate and aggressive.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know