[James L]

We're in Iraq PROTECTING oil supplies for US AND THE WORLD. In 12/01 OBL said he was going to destabilize the US economy and oil was an easy way to do it. We don't TAKE the oil. We BUY it at market prices. Oil disruption of sufficient amounts would topple the US, and then the Global economy. If that happened OBL would have won the game. Only when Iraq units are as numerous & can guard the oil as well as our troops can we leave Iraq. Thanx 2 GWB, you drive to work & live a normal life.

That is a current signature from one of our more prolific members in the PL.

I am curious at peoples thoughts on this.

By conservative accounts there are over 25,000 civilians dead since the US invaded Iraq, and double that wounded. Men. Women. Children. Other accounts go much higher, but let's stay to the low end to attempt to avoid over exaggerating the numbers.

Is that justification?

We all know GWB lied to invade Iraq. I think the vast majority of people think that the invasion was more about oil and securing US interests in the region. I think most intelligent people know that Iraq is a sideline from the actual WoT.

I think the last sentence of the signature sums up that PL member's beliefs:

Thanx 2 GWB, you drive to work & live a normal life.

So, I guess my question is: If we follow the member's train of thought... was it worth it? The next time you fill up with gas at the pump to drive to work, knowing that it was at the expense of 25,000 innocents.... was it worth it?

Or, do we think the quote above is off base?

As an aside to this:

Why not Saudi Arabia? Osama is from Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia has a significant higher production rate for oil than Iraq has (more than double the oil output than Iraq by many studies). Why is the US seemingly in bed with the country that produced the terrorists, and yet invaded Iraq, either under the misguided belief that Iraq had WMD and links to the terrorists, and / or to make sure you can drive to work tomorrow?

[Athens]

Ive been using Mohawk and Husky for my gas because 10% of it is Canadian ethanol, environmentally friendly and Mohawk/Husky mostly refines the oil from Alberta oil sands so when I fill up, I dont have guilt. Of course the war was over oil and I think Iraq made a better target because the middle east didn't like him, he has a history, and its oil industry was already unstable. Why risk messing up a solid stable supply in Saudi Arabia over a unstable supply in Iraq.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by James L

That is a current signature from one of our more prolific members in the PL.

I am curious at peoples thoughts on this.

By conservative accounts there are over 25,000 civilians dead since the US invaded Iraq, and double that wounded. Men. Women. Children. Other accounts go much higher, but let's stay to the low end to attempt to avoid over exaggerating the numbers.

Is that justification?

We all know GWB lied to invade Iraq. I think the vast majority of people think that the invasion was more about oil and securing US interests in the region. I think most intelligent people know that Iraq is a sideline from the actual WoT.

I think the last sentence of the signature sums up that PL member's beliefs:



So, I guess my question is: If we follow the member's train of thought... was it worth it? The next time you fill up with gas at the pump to drive to work, knowing that it was at the expense of 25,000 innocents.... was it worth it?

Or, do we think the quote above is off base?

As an aside to this:

Why not Saudi Arabia? Osama is from Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia has a significant higher production rate for oil than Iraq has (more than double the oil output than Iraq by many studies). Why is the US seemingly in bed with the country that produced the terrorists, and yet invaded Iraq, either under the misguided belief that Iraq had WMD and links to the terrorists, and / or to make sure you can drive to work tomorrow?

The sig is demonstrably false but as it is an accurate representation of current mass opinion it also proves, if considered correctly, that the whole OBL mythos, terrorism and the WOT is false.

Follow the logic:

We know OBL is a multi-millionaire.

The theory necessitates that he is prepared to lose large amounts of money to pursue his greater aim: the downfall of the West. Inevitably hitting the oil prices and undermining capitalism would also see an end to his own assets - ergo he is not primarily focused on wealth creation and is prepared to sacrifice his fortune.

Further the mythos is that he lives simply and does not care about money so much, Certainly he is not the average Western 'consumer.

Therefore, if it is true that his aim is to destabilize the US economy then, given the above factors he could do that in a devastating fashion just by a click of the fingers. In fact he could bring the whole house crashing down. How?

Simple: gamble $1M on the stock market. Or $2, $5, $10 - the sky's the limit.

But do it to lose the money. Bang. It's all over.

No bombs, no oil conspiracy...nada....and it's Goodnight Vienna.

there is no built-in protection against this because there never needed to be one - no-one would spend millions on stocks with an aim to lose...unless they are mad.

But the 'terrorists' allegedly ARE mad. And OBL allegedly DOES have the cash and the will.....

...yet he does nothing and still it's the money-making merry-go round doing business as usual.

Makes you think.....well, makes some people think maybe....one or two.....

[Millennium]

I hate to nitpick, but you have a pronoun/antecedent issue here which is giving me some difficulty. Is what justification for what?

I guess it leads to the question: if the ends cannot justify the means, then can the ends invalidate the means? How much of the civilian casualties were a direct and necessary consequence of the invasion, rather than coincidental? Does this make any differences? Turning the question back on those who asked it, how many deaths are 'acceptable', or is even one death too many? If we accept accidental deaths to be bad, then are they as bad as deliberate killings?

Both sides would like you to believe that there are easy answers to these questions. Both sides are lying as far as that's concerned.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I hate to nitpick, but you have a pronoun/antecedent issue here which is giving me some difficulty. Is what justification for what?

I guess it leads to the question: if the ends cannot justify the means, then can the ends invalidate the means? How much of the civilian casualties were a direct and necessary consequence of the invasion, rather than coincidental? Does this make any differences? Turning the question back on those who asked it, how many deaths are 'acceptable', or is even one death too many? If we accept accidental deaths to be bad, then are they as bad as deliberate killings?

Both sides would like you to believe that there are easy answers to these questions. Both sides are lying as far as that's concerned.

Go find a black male that looks like he might rob a store and kill him. Dont forget to tell the judge the ends justify the means, you prob saved some store. See of your civil and criminal laws agree with that BS idea.

[loki74]

ummm... I believe his post was a question, not a statement. He did not say, "the ends justify the means." He said, "Okay, lets say the ends don't justtify the means. That brings up these questions: ..."

He then also stated that both lies will try to simplify the answers to these questions in such a way that is advantagous to their agenda and most likely dishonest.

...at least thats what I got out of it. I'm not seeing where the whole "shoot a black man" thing works into this....

[James L]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I hate to nitpick, but you have a pronoun/antecedent issue here which is giving me some difficulty. Is what justification for what?

I guess it leads to the question: if the ends cannot justify the means, then can the ends invalidate the means? How much of the civilian casualties were a direct and necessary consequence of the invasion, rather than coincidental? Does this make any differences? Turning the question back on those who asked it, how many deaths are 'acceptable', or is even one death too many? If we accept accidental deaths to be bad, then are they as bad as deliberate killings?

Both sides would like you to believe that there are easy answers to these questions. Both sides are lying as far as that's concerned.

You guessed correctly. My question was, if you buy into the theory that the war was to secure oil interests in the middle east for the US, and that according to the sig I quoted to begin this thread that we should thank GWB for this.... is it worth it?

Do the ends (secure oil reserves) justify the means (the death of innocents)?

A quick google:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4692589.stm

...brought up the number of 37% of the innocents were killed as a direct result of the US Invasion. That is around 9000 or so. Is the death of 9,000 women, children, and men justified to be able to confidently fuel up the old vehicle to drive to work each day, as suggested by the sig I quoted?

To reverse the situation, would you tolerate the invasion, and subsequent death, of 9,000 people in your home town to allow another country to secure their oil interests?

Would you personally kill the 9,000? If you believe the theory brought forward by the sig in question to be true, and that we should thank GWB for it, are you not complicit in these deaths?

[loki74]

You do pose a very good question... I do not think that these particular ends justify these particular means. But I would be quick to argue anyone who asserts that oil, and oil only, is the justification for this war. As your question shows, it is not much of a justification.

But I do support the war, for other reasons.

[James L]

Originally Posted by loki74

You do pose a very good question... I do not think that these particular ends justify these particular means. But I would be quick to argue anyone who asserts that oil, and oil only, is the justification for this war. As your question shows, it is not much of a justification.

But I do support the war, for other reasons.

Without flaming or trolling you Loki, may I ask what your other reasons are?

I am not anti WoT. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. I feel differently about Iraq. I would be interested in your views.

PM me if you want to avoid the inevitable mess that this topic creates on this forum!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

You guessed correctly. My question was, if you buy into the theory that the war was to secure oil interests in the middle east for the US, and that according to the sig I quoted to begin this thread that we should thank GWB for this.... is it worth it?

Do the ends (secure oil reserves) justify the means (the death of innocents)?

A quick google:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4692589.stm

...brought up the number of 37% of the innocents were killed as a direct result of the US Invasion. That is around 9000 or so. Is the death of 9,000 women, children, and men justified to be able to confidently fuel up the old vehicle to drive to work each day, as suggested by the sig I quoted?

To reverse the situation, would you tolerate the invasion, and subsequent death, of 9,000 people in your home town to allow another country to secure their oil interests?

Would you personally kill the 9,000? If you believe the theory brought forward by the sig in question to be true, and that we should thank GWB for it, are you not complicit in these deaths?

Please don't fail to consider the indeterminable number of those dead whose SOLE purpose in Iraq is/was to vie for Iraq just as the Coalition is vying for Iraq.

They want the oil. They want to deny the West the oil so they might gain leverage over the military and economic might enjoyed by the West.

They want to IMPOSE a compulsory radical view of Islam on the people there.

The West is there to assure the oil flows to every nation with the funds to buy it. The West wants to lift the oppression of man, religion or regime to permit the people of Iraq to choose, as you and I do, the form of government we want. The leaders we want. The religion we want. Without coercion or undue influence from without.

The West is committed to raising the standard of living and education for the people there.

How many of the 9,000 who perished understood this?

And how many were determined to OPPOSE this?

And why do you oppose it?

Why would ANYONE oppose it?

Isn't freedom and the pursuit of happiness a good thing???

If YOU enjoy it are you saying the 'little brown ones" don't deserve it?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Athens

Go find a black male that looks like he might rob a store and kill him. Dont forget to tell the judge the ends justify the means, you prob saved some store. See of your civil and criminal laws agree with that BS idea.

Your argument would be valid if that individual were completely innocent.

Are you saying Sadam Hussein is an innocent man?

Lastly, why did you put "black male" in there? Are you stereotyping black males?

[mojo2]

In fact, the more I step back from this issue to consider it (before once again moving closer to examine it in "macrospect" and then shifting my gaze to a different aspect of it and repeating the process...and then repeat this same process several times a day over a period of many months) the more I recognize how deficient I have been in correctly framing this whole issue.

I doubt any of you would have any problem with this level of violence if we actually were (as Athens mentioned in a post some weeks ago) waging war over WATER.

We all recognize the importance of water and we all SORTA take it for granted but we all realize that without it we would die and all our manufactured products and all the services and conveniences we use and enjoy would either cease to function or would not be produced and without the ability to produce products and deliver them and the services we use our national economy would crumble.

If the US economy crumbled then the global economies would all implode and standing above the ruins would be whom?

Now, instead of water, just insert the word oil and the scenario would be about the same.

How many people do you suppose would die in that scenario?

It is tragic, the number of people who have died in Iraq. But there would be many more dead if OBL had his way and the ONLY reason he hasn't followed through with his vow to disrupt our national economy is because we ARE in Iraq.

He was going to do it. He SAID so. He has TRIED to do it several times since 9/11.

The reason he hasn't succeeded is because GWB invaded Iraq.

Every normal day you enjoy and are ABLE to go to the gas station and buy gas at ONLY $3.00/gal is because GWB invaded. Otherwise gas (at OBL's intended $200/bbl price) would be $10/gal.

$3.00/gal because GWB invaded Iraq.

$10.00/gal. If OBL hadn't been stopped from carrying out his stated plans.

9,000?? Iraqis killed to protect the oil.

XX,XXX?? Americans & other Westerners AND Iraqis and Arabs dead if OBL was able to use oil as a weapon.

See if you can name ANY job or occupation or product or industry which wouldn't be affected by a terrorist disruption of oil flowing from the M.E.

You can't.

Some would be harder hit than others.

Your business as a Paramedic (if that's what you do) would probably be affected before many others as killings and fights broke out over gas shortages and gas lines and the stresses at home when the husband was unable to deal with the stress of how to pay the bills when he can't afford to pay for the gas to drive to work and the local jobs aren't able to support the family as his distant job could.

There would be NO SHORTAGE of horror stories that would warrant your sympathy if OBL had been allowed free reign in Iraq.

And, I'll remind you, OBL announced his intentions to do this BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

As I and many other posters have said here many times before, we invaded Iraq for several reasons.

The best reason was to protect the oil.

When you say your prayers tonite, after you pray for the poor Iraqis who are paying the highest price in this struggle (the struggle that could end tomorrow if al Qaeda would quit it's jihad), say a prayer for your child(ren) and mine that OBL has been prevented from bringing the jihad to us, here.

Then say a prayer for George W. Bush.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Your argument would be valid if that individual were completely innocent.

Are you saying Sadam Hussein is an innocent man?

Lastly, why did you put "black male" in there? Are you stereotyping black males?

Well one can argue that the Iraq war was as much to do with oil as it does with Muslims, I used the Black Male to signify racial sterotyping. Its not anything against blacks its just for context. And Sadam was no innocent, but he was not guilty for which the war was started either. Hey I would feel totally different about the war if it was We went in there to finish the job of Bush Sr, or we went in there because XXXX as long as it was something that was truthful. WMD was a lie to fool other nations to allow the war in the first place. The world would have objected badly if it was to just take out Sadam with no valid reason.

[mojo2]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...44#post2732744

I think it may be time for each of us to recognize the responsibility we each bear in making the war a necessity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens

Go find a black male that looks like he might rob a store and kill him. Dont forget to tell the judge the ends justify the means, you prob saved some store. See of your civil and criminal laws agree with that BS idea.

Oops, it seems you may have left your "racist" hanging out a smidgen. Better tuck that back away.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens

Well one can argue that the Iraq war was as much to do with oil as it does with Muslims, I used the Black Male to signify racial sterotyping. Its not anything against blacks its just for context.

Eerily similar to William Bennett's comments for which he was caste away as a racist quack. Are you to be scrutinized in the same way? Did you have anything to say against Bennett? I certainly hope not.

I wonder how many of our liberal friends will be quick to call you to the carpet for this. None? Thought so. See, it's okay to use race as an example of absurdity as long as you're on the side of those who supposedly don't concern themselves with the color of one's skin. Geez, it's just excruciating. C'mon, could a liberal (preferrably one who was most vocal in the William Bennett thread) please pop in here and correct Athens? You're pointing fingers at people you'll never have an opportunity to talk to, but now you have an opportunity to confront racism right here in your midst yet you remain silent???

And Sadam was no innocent, but he was not guilty for which the war was started either.

Our memory is short here Athens.

Hey I would feel totally different about the war if it was We went in there to finish the job of Bush Sr,

For someone quick to point out lies, you seem to have no problem throwing around a few of your own. The above is as disingenuous as it gets.

or we went in there because XXXX as long as it was something that was truthful. WMD was a lie to fool other nations to allow the war in the first place.

This was a darn good lie then. Bush was so good at lying that he convinced the Clinton Administration that Saddam had WMD prior to Bush even holding office. Most of the International Community believed Saddam was a threat. The only disagreement was how to handle the threat. We now come to find out those most opposed to our actions were protecting a meal ticket they had in Saddam through Oil For Food. I love how silent we've become on this biggy. Had France and others convinced Saddam that we were serious about our first 12 UN Resolutions instead of harkening back to the failed policies of the 12 years prior in getting one more day of perks, perhaps Saddam would've been compliant a little more quickly. When an International body threatens "severe consequences" for non-compliance, it's a good idea to ensure those threats are not idle. The credibility of the UN was at stake. Yet, this is Bush's lie. Man, unbelievable how A.D.D. we've all become in this.

The world would have objected badly if it was to just take out Sadam with no valid reason.

Nope, there were 13 reasons as agreed by an International Body. We finally acted on one of them. We removed Saddam. What the American people are trying to decide now is how much do we care about the Iraqi people. Do we care enough to see them through the building of their own civil defense or is it now that Saddam is gone, mission is accomplished. I prefer the first. We simply cannot cut and run at this point. The majority of Iraqis wanted Saddam gone. He's now gone, but there's a faction of insurgents who'd like to revert back to failed policies of the past. We cannot allow that to happen. We have strategic interests in Iraq, we have monetary interests in Iraq, we have humanitarian interests in Iraq, and we've got too much invested in each of the above to cut and run now.

[mojo2]

Athens
Addicted to MacNN


Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,268
Status: Offline
report abuse
Yesterday, 04:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Millennium
I hate to nitpick, but you have a pronoun/antecedent issue here which is giving me some difficulty. Is what justification for what?

I guess it leads to the question: if the ends cannot justify the means, then can the ends invalidate the means? How much of the civilian casualties were a direct and necessary consequence of the invasion, rather than coincidental? Does this make any differences? Turning the question back on those who asked it, how many deaths are 'acceptable', or is even one death too many? If we accept accidental deaths to be bad, then are they as bad as deliberate killings?

Both sides would like you to believe that there are easy answers to these questions. Both sides are lying as far as that's concerned.


Go find a black male that looks like he might rob a store and kill him. Dont forget to tell the judge the ends justify the means, you prob saved some store. See of your civil and criminal laws agree with that BS idea.
__________________

I agree that it is difficult to do but if you look closely at what Athens is trying to say, I think you will recognize this to be NOT an example of racism, but one of Athens' way around a sentence. I don't know, maybe he could ask President Bush for some grammar lessons or something?

Anyone who wants to 'string him up' for what is likely NOT what you think it is should compare this to the theme and tone of the body of all his other messages.

In this instance I believe he is using the hypothetical black man as a symbol of an oppressed minority such as he perceives all the dead in Iraq (no matter that there are ALSO jihadists from all over the world who've travelled there to kill Americans) - even if they blow up other Iraqis and innocent civilians - as oppressed minorities.

If someone wants to legitimately nail a poster then that is all part of the game. You wander in, you take your chances.

However, I don't think it's right to knowingly (IF-IF-IF someone is doing this) accuse someone of a deed he did not do.

In my heart of hearts I do not believe Athens was being racist here, not even in a Freudian way.

I think he was trying to say:

American racism and an oppressive system victimizes blacks in the USA.

...is EXACTLY THE SAME AS...

American racism and an oppressive system victimizes Iraqis in Iraq.

If you are looking for his patterns one thing to note is how everything seems to be painted with big sweeping brush strokes with little attention to detail or nuance and he seems very impressionistic. This is true in this case where he displays little attention to the significant differences in racism in America and the situation in Iraq. To him, it's all similar enough such that HE sees a connection and if YOU don't it's because you have no vision or are...whatever.

About this he is absolutely wrong, (as usual) but nail him for being wrong, not for being a bigot.

[James L]

mojo,

So you believe that the deaths of 10's of thousands of Iraqi's was a necessity to secure the US oil supply and the US economy?

Is this not placing the value of a US life over and above the value of an Iraqi life?

If you truly feel this was justified, if someone lined 9,000 or 25,000 people up in front of a wall and said "mojo, pull the trigger a few thousand times and you will secure the US economy and oil interests"

...could you? Would you?

If you believe that you should pray to GWB, and give him thanks, then surely you would line up the innocents and pull the trigger yourself, wouldn't you?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by James L

mojo,

So you believe that the deaths of 10's of thousands of Iraqi's was a necessity to secure the US oil supply and the US economy?

Is this not placing the value of a US life over and above the value of an Iraqi life?

If you truly feel this was justified, if someone lined 9,000 or 25,000 people up in front of a wall and said "mojo, pull the trigger a few thousand times and you will secure the US economy and oil interests"

...could you? Would you?

If you believe that you should pray to GWB, and give him thanks, then surely you would line up the innocents and pull the trigger yourself, wouldn't you?

With a Christian perspective, it is clear the innocents will go to Heaven, and the wicked to Hell. So what does it matter anyway?

In the end, it ends well for everyone!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by mojo2

there would be many more dead if OBL had his way and the ONLY reason he hasn't followed through with his vow to disrupt our national economy is because we ARE in Iraq.

Hey mojo, how's it goin?

I was just thinking, Saudi Arabia produces more oil than Iraq; how come OBL hasn't tried to destroy Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure? Or Canada's? Canada is surely easier to bomb than US occupied Iraq, right?

[loki74]

Originally Posted by James L

Without flaming or trolling you Loki, may I ask what your other reasons are?

I am not anti WoT. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. I feel differently about Iraq. I would be interested in your views.

PM me if you want to avoid the inevitable mess that this topic creates on this forum!

Well as long as I refrain from flaming/trolling you... and everyone else refrains from flaming/trolling everyone else. (wishful thinking, I know ) Hopefully the mess won't be quite as bad as usual.

My biggest reason for supporting the war is that I think that Saddam was indeed an evil dictator who was dangerous to his people and possibly to us. Regardless of what he was doing re: terror and WMD's, IIRC he WAS in violation of a number of UN sanctions, and nothing was being done. I mean, sure I've heard it said that it is not the US's responsibility to "police the world", but it is my opinion that someone must do it, and I'm glad the US is stepping up to the plate, regardless of what it will do to how the world views us.

It is also true that there are many other evil dictators out there, who deserve to be taken out just as much as Saddam. This is where the WMD thing comes in. Regardless of whether or not the allegation turned out to be true, their presence (the allegations I mean, not the weapons) has a major impact on a decision. Take this info from the CIA or FBI (or whoever provided/corroborated the info) on top of the fact that Saddam was violating UN sanctions and was known to be dangerous, and I think that's cause enough.

Continuing with the WMD thing, I do recall hearing something about them finding a weapons-grade uranium refining centrifuge. I dont know what else you would or could do with such a centrifuge but refine weapons-grade uranium. Whether or not he had WMDs I think its fair to say he probably wanted them...

Its kind of like you have probable cause to search a person's house for evidence on a charge of murder, and you find an empty gun. But you also find that he's been beating his kids. I'm not sure whether the cops would need another warrant or something (obviously my analogy does not line up perfectly) but the guy should get busted for the latter even if the former cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by mojo2

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...44#post2732744

I think it may be time for each of us to recognize the responsibility we each bear in making the war a necessity.

Hi again. I know you are a proponent of people stepping back and using objective analysis of evidence to see the hypocrisy of their positions. For instance, I might say that we can live without ME oil, while at the same time drinking a bucket of the stuff to recharge my metallic robot innards...or something. That would be hypocritical of me. Anyway, you're right, we sould all be aware of our individual responsibility for contributing to oil dependence. Should we not also be aware of our individual responsibility for contributing to Why They Hate Us™?

Supposing They (whoever They are at the moment) hate us enough to destroy the world's water supply, as you have hyperbolized. In that case, We (We being those in the position to possibly stop such a plot for the good of all those uninvolved who would be affected) are obliged to stop Them. But are We not also obliged to step back and use objective analysis of the evidence to see the cause of the problem, the reason They hate us enough to do such a thing, and seeing that circumstance at least try to mitigate it? If the reason They hate us is because we use their holy books as toilet paper, shouldn't we think about using something else for toilet paper instead (in addition to attempting to thwart their evil plans)? What if the reason They hate Us is the same reason We hate Them? We hate Them because they killed 3000 of our civilians (well, We thought of them as civilians; They, it's been said, thought of them as soldiers in the economic war). Now We've killed 9000 of Them (according to conservative estimates in this thread). Do We bear no responsibility for the 9000 while They bear all the responsibility for the 3000? What about a third possibility, that perhaps They hate Us because while their people are starving in the dirt, We are broadcasting game shows about eating competitions and other ridiculous excesses? If this is the reason, shouldn't We try to find that out, and put a stop to it? I mean, perhaps We might not be able to live without oil, but We could certainly live without reality TV, or without Hummers, or without a lot of the ridiculous excesses of our society. If changing those small things would be enough to make Them not hate us, thus making invasion of Them by Us unnecessary, shouldn't we find that out and give it a try? Don't we owe it to the 9000 dead to at least try?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Oops, it seems you may have left your "racist" hanging out a smidgen. Better tuck that back away.

Im not racist

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I agree that it is difficult to do but if you look closely at what Athens is trying to say, I think you will recognize this to be NOT an example of racism, but one of Athens' way around a sentence. I don't know, maybe he could ask President Bush for some grammar lessons or something?

Anyone who wants to 'string him up' for what is likely NOT what you think it is should compare this to the theme and tone of the body of all his other messages.

In this instance I believe he is using the hypothetical black man as a symbol of an oppressed minority such as he perceives all the dead in Iraq (no matter that there are ALSO jihadists from all over the world who've travelled there to kill Americans) - even if they blow up other Iraqis and innocent civilians - as oppressed minorities.

If someone wants to legitimately nail a poster then that is all part of the game. You wander in, you take your chances.

However, I don't think it's right to knowingly (IF-IF-IF someone is doing this) accuse someone of a deed he did not do.

In my heart of hearts I do not believe Athens was being racist here, not even in a Freudian way.

I think he was trying to say:



If you are looking for his patterns one thing to note is how everything seems to be painted with big sweeping brush strokes with little attention to detail or nuance and he seems very impressionistic. This is true in this case where he displays little attention to the significant differences in racism in America and the situation in Iraq. To him, it's all similar enough such that HE sees a connection and if YOU don't it's because you have no vision or are...whatever.

About this he is absolutely wrong, (as usual) but nail him for being wrong, not for being a bigot.

most of the time your fun to argue with because you most of the time have content to argue with Thanx, you said it better then I could have said it. But you where dead on the point why I used a black male in that context. My point was Iraq was being sterotyped as being this big evil threat, in the US there is a sterotype of black males committing more crimes when infact its really more are put in jail, it was in that way I ment to use the black male. I think the statment had more power by saying shoot a black male (sterotype) to prevent him from robing a store over saying Shoot some one because that some one might rob a store.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

there would be many more dead if OBL had his way and the ONLY reason he hasn't followed through with his vow to disrupt our national economy is because we ARE in Iraq.

I had originally responded to this post yesterday but IE crashed on me and I lost it so I will attempt to redo it tonight. The thing is under Sadam OBL had no power in Iraq. The war has resulted in first the country destabilized, allowing for terrorist groups a new home after they where uprooted from Afghanistan, second created misery and desperation for the ppl in Iraq which allowed more people to be easily converted into OBL cause and made the US into the enemy of Muslims allowing further momentum for OBL and his cause. The US should have stuck to Afghanistan and finished the job there before splitting forces between the two. I think 60 000 US troops are in Afghanistan now, 10 000 Canadians, and XXX number of a bunch of other countries. If the US focused on Afghanistan only, with the support of other nations there would be 400 000 troops there keeping the peace, capturing all elements of the Taliban and putting a end to the original hotbed of terrorists. In stead a new soup was created just rip for OBL. And now Iraq is so week, he may even get a entire nation when the US leaves Iraq. My post for this was better yesterday but I think im getting across my point.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens

Im not racist

I know you're not racist Athens.

My point was that William Bennett said something remarkably similar and a thread was started stating "A priceless Republican Gem". I just wanted to illustrate that non-Republicans say similar things, it doesn't make them racist. Art_Director says Bennett's statements win the 'Fcuk was that a stupid thing to say' award. I just wanted to see if there were second and third place winners as well or are we silent only unless it's a Republican.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

About this he is absolutely wrong, (as usual) but nail him for being wrong, not for being a bigot.

I addressed each point in kind. The statements made in support of Athens here while relatively long-winded () are the exact same arguments folks were making on behalf of William Bennett. Because certain "groups" of people try to fashion themselves as inclusionary, it's fun for them to point fingers at alleged racists in other "groups". It's excruciating.

I used Athens comments to illustrate that we do make allowances for examples like Athens', why do we not extend this to others? Had I said the same, or had another "conservative", can you not see that the indictments would be coming out of the wood work here?

My arguments against his other points went without a response.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I know you're not racist Athens.

My point was that William Bennett said something remarkably similar and a thread was started stating "A priceless Republican Gem". I just wanted to illustrate that non-Republicans say similar things, it doesn't make them racist. Art_Director says Bennett's statements win the 'Fcuk was that a stupid thing to say' award. I just wanted to see if there were second and third place winners as well or are we silent only unless it's a Republican.

I dont even know who William Bennett is

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens

I dont even know who William Bennett is

All you need to know is that he is a conservative Republican who made a remarkably similar statement and was railed by US Media as well as several here on MacNN for "racism". He's not a racist and neither are you.

Pendergast for example should be saying things to you such as;

"It is so nice to talk about this with lightness and a touch of cold rationality.

Especially when we are not black.

It feels so goooooooooood to be white and well, isn't it?

Apparently, he feels that because you are not a conservative Republican, you can't possibly be racist. However, Pendergast's advise to you is;

Quite a sensitive demonstration though. I would avoid topics like these to ensure limited misquotations.

You should be talking about "blue" people, not black.

The point stands.

[Y3a]

25,000 dead civilians?

WHO KILLED THEM?
WHO SAID THEY WERE INNOCENT?

Hypothetical at best...

[Y3a]

<< We all know GWB lied to invade Iraq. >>

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!
GWB didn't lie, he repeated intel that was faulty. The UN, the U.K. Russia and others made the same assumptions. Think back far enough to remember the run around the UN Inspectors got trying to know for sure. Jeez!

I guess if you keep saying it long enough they will believe it?

[himself]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I know you're not racist Athens.

My point was that William Bennett said something remarkably similar and a thread was started stating "A priceless Republican Gem". I just wanted to illustrate that non-Republicans say similar things, it doesn't make them racist. Art_Director says Bennett's statements win the 'Fcuk was that a stupid thing to say' award. I just wanted to see if there were second and third place winners as well or are we silent only unless it's a Republican.

I heard William Bennett's quote and, as a Black [so called "liberal"] man, while I don't think it was particularly "rascist," it was definitely insensitive and poorly considered (and, yes, stupid). Come on, if you were to abort a whole generation of white babies, you're just as likely to see a decrease in crime as for aborting a generation of black babies. What was suspect was the singling out of black babies, and connecting it to the crime rate. Regardless, it's something you're likely to hear on Fox, so it's no biggie anyway. Athen's analogy doesn't compare, because his intent was clear and obvious to me (and it didn't appear to be "racist" in the least). However, ebuddy, you have been successful in taking this thread off-topic, and I am guilty of falling for the bait. Thanks again, ebuddy!

Back on-topic, I don't agree with the assertions made in that sig quote. The oil economy didn't start to destabilize the way that it has until there was talk of invading Iraq. The actual invasion really started to get that ball rolling. OBL has done very little to actually affect oil output or prices negatively that hadn't been done better by the current administration (and the previous presidential administrations, to whatever extent), natural disasters (hurricanes Katrina, Rita, etc), the oil industries refusal to increase refining capacity (which will have a greater effect on prices than anything else), and OPEC using the current international political and economic climate of fear to justify higher prices for crude oil. As far as I'm concerned, OBL is not even a factor, just another excuse.

If you take both a narrow, and then a broad look into this massive geo-political drama, and take into account the full depths of oil, economic power, and political power, it becomes quite apparent that OBL is really just a pawn, and has no real power in this game, except the power that our leaders say that he has (and our leaders use him effectively to instill fear). No one has seen or heard from OBL (verifiably) for nearly a year. GWB has shown no concern at all for OBL after the Iraq invasion. He may actually be dead for all we know. But I have a sinking feeling that OBL's name will be heard quite a bit when it becomes politically profitable.

Lower gas prices do not justify this invasion, or the death of civilians (or the deaths of American and "allied" soldiers) in my view. I stated this opinion elsewhere, but I think that higher gas prices (much higher) is the best thing that can happen to America, because it forces us to conserve and to support technologies that promote energy conservation (the skyrocketing popularity of hybrid vehicles is a good example). There comes a point where a nation and it's leaders has to have the balls to say that we need to start exercising a little more discipline and common sense, instead of stepping on the backs of others to support our excesses.

Originally Posted by Millenium

I guess it leads to the question: if the ends cannot justify the means, then can the ends invalidate the means? How much of the civilian casualties were a direct and necessary consequence of the invasion, rather than coincidental? Does this make any differences? Turning the question back on those who asked it, how many deaths are 'acceptable', or is even one death too many? If we accept accidental deaths to be bad, then are they as bad as deliberate killings?

Both sides would like you to believe that there are easy answers to these questions. Both sides are lying as far as that's concerned.

The ends most definitely can invalidate the means, if the means were suspect in the first place, and if the ends are not achieved. In this case, the means are suspect (or at least irreconcilable with the result), and the ends are a long way from being fulfilled at this point in time. Now, I don't expect that those desired ends would be realized anytime soon anyhow; but the further off the goal is, the more likely that the desired ends could have been achieved through less traumatic methods. In that vein, the question is not how many deaths are acceptable, or whether or not they are accidental, the real question is what is your/our role in the situation? Did you/we choose or support the best option for the situation? Do the ends validate that choice?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Y3a

25,000 dead civilians?

WHO KILLED THEM?
WHO SAID THEY WERE INNOCENT?

Hypothetical at best...

Especially the children and pregnant women. These are the worst, because they represent the future of terrorism. Got to stop the problem at the source man.

[Y3a]

So killing the insurgents is wrong?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So killing the insurgents is wrong?

Of course not!

And as I mentioned very clearly, women (especially pregnant) and children are justifiable targets!

C'mon! I thought you had vision! Obviously, you can't stand by your convictions; I seriously doubt of your patriotism now.

Anyway, if they are good Christians, they will go to Heaven if they are innocents.

Thank Goodness for Al-Qaida and the US and the insurgents to move more and more potentially innocent people closer to our Creator!

On a personal note, are you able to identify sarcasm?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by himself

I heard William Bennett's quote and, as a Black [so called "liberal"] man, while I don't think it was particularly "rascist," it was definitely insensitive and poorly considered (and, yes, stupid).

By this reasoning, I would fully expect you to hold Athens to equal account. You won't, but I'll try to explain why that might be.

Come on, if you were to abort a whole generation of white babies, you're just as likely to see a decrease in crime as for aborting a generation of black babies.

I'm going to illustrate to you why your reaction is knee-jerk. It is apparent to me that you heard little more than "abort all black babies, reduce crime rate" and ran with it. While your statement on abortion is generally true, there are some serious issues to consider in the interest of being in your words; "sensitive", "considerate" and yes, "smart". Especially as a black male in the US.

Opponents of abortion (ardent ones such as Bennett) reject legislating abortion based on the prospect of lowering crime. Opponents of abortion believe abortion is reprehensible and believe it's initial intent had nothing to do with freedom of choice for women and more to do with eliminating a lower socio economic sector. AKA; genocide. A book called 'Freakonomics' affirmed that abortion has in fact lowered the crime rate. Let's look at abortion statistics;

Blacks comprise approximately 12.1% of US population yet, represent approximately 35.7% of abortions performed. (statehealthfacts.org)

Blacks comprise approximately 12.1% of the population yet, represent 52.1% of all homicides committed.

Per NCSV survey of robbery victims, 46% report having been robbed by a black. This is credible when compared to number of incarcerations and other statistics compiled by criminologists, the census bureau on race and demographic, as well as crime by demographic. It is simply irrefutable.

At the end of the day, blacks comprise a disproportionately high percentage of crime and abortion. Now, you can qualify that by saying crime is a socio-economic condition, not a racial condition, taking race completely out of the equation. However, what cannot be qualified is the rate of black babies being eliminated by abortion. Opponents believe this is genocide and reprehensible. Bennett stated as much. A caller in to Bennett's radio show tried to make the connection between abortion and less people investing into Social Security. Bennett countered this argument with the absurd and reprehensible notion of reducing crime by eliminating black babies. You may not appreciate the rhetoric, but it is founded in a fervent distaste for abortion in general and what is believed to be the reason behind it. It should've gotten your attention. Only, it didn't get the attention it deserved focusing on the issue, it got you to focus on Bennett. This, based I believe on a tinge of prejudice in your own heart. I sometimes wonder if the reaction would've been similar had Robert Byrd (known liberal, former-clansman) made the comment. Opponents of abortion whether you agree with them or not, would succeed in increasing the number of minorities' contribution to society if they had their way. Bennett is among them. Athens' use of race in his argument was no more "necessary" than Bennett's use of race in his argument. Yet, you'll make allowances for Athens' context, but not for one with an opposing political, world-view. Interesting no?

Regardless, it's something you're likely to hear on Fox, so it's no biggie anyway.

The issue was covered extensively by Reuters, CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and various other news outlets. The event occurred on a radio show hosted by Bennett. I think you're a little too predictable in your liberal talking points. No foundation for the statements, no data to back your claims, and allowances made for those you deem liberal and nothing, but indictments for Conservatives.

By the way, I offered a host of subject matter on the actual thread issue. You responded to none of that. No thanks is necessary.

[himself]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

By this reasoning, I would fully expect you to hold Athens to equal account. You won't, but I'll try to explain why that might be.


I'm going to illustrate to you why your reaction is knee-jerk. It is apparent to me that you heard little more than "abort all black babies, reduce crime rate" and ran with it. While your statement on abortion is generally true, there are some serious issues to consider in the interest of being in your words; "sensitive", "considerate" and yes, "smart". Especially as a black male in the US.

Opponents of abortion (ardent ones such as Bennett) reject legislating abortion based on the prospect of lowering crime. Opponents of abortion believe abortion is reprehensible and believe it's initial intent had nothing to do with freedom of choice for women and more to do with eliminating a lower socio economic sector. AKA; genocide. A book called 'Freakonomics' affirmed that abortion has in fact lowered the crime rate. Let's look at abortion statistics;

Blacks comprise approximately 12.1% of US population yet, represent approximately 35.7% of abortions performed. (statehealthfacts.org)

Blacks comprise approximately 12.1% of the population yet, represent 52.1% of all homicides committed.

Per NCSV survey of robbery victims, 46% report having been robbed by a black. This is credible when compared to number of incarcerations and other statistics compiled by criminologists, the census bureau on race and demographic, as well as crime by demographic. It is simply irrefutable.

At the end of the day, blacks comprise a disproportionately high percentage of crime and abortion. Now, you can qualify that by saying crime is a socio-economic condition, not a racial condition, taking race completely out of the equation. However, what cannot be qualified is the rate of black babies being eliminated by abortion. Opponents believe this is genocide and reprehensible. Bennett stated as much. A caller in to Bennett's radio show tried to make the connection between abortion and less people investing into Social Security. Bennett countered this argument with the absurd and reprehensible notion of reducing crime by eliminating black babies. You may not appreciate the rhetoric, but it is founded in a fervent distaste for abortion in general and what is believed to be the reason behind it. It should've gotten your attention. Only, it didn't get the attention it deserved focusing on the issue, it got you to focus on Bennett. This, based I believe on a tinge of prejudice in your own heart. I sometimes wonder if the reaction would've been similar had Robert Byrd (known liberal, former-clansman) made the comment. Opponents of abortion whether you agree with them or not, would succeed in increasing the number of minorities' contribution to society if they had their way. Bennett is among them. Athens' use of race in his argument was no more "necessary" than Bennett's use of race in his argument. Yet, you'll make allowances for Athens' context, but not for one with an opposing political, world-view. Interesting no?


The issue was covered extensively by Reuters, CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and various other news outlets. The event occurred on a radio show hosted by Bennett. I think you're a little too predictable in your liberal talking points. No foundation for the statements, no data to back your claims, and allowances made for those you deem liberal and nothing, but indictments for Conservatives.

By the way, I offered a host of subject matter on the actual thread issue. You responded to none of that. No thanks is necessary.

This train is officially de-railed...

I never noticed the thread on the Bennett topic in the PL. If i had seen it, I would have at least read through it, if not posted in it. If the thread isn't dead, I may post to it.

I heard the entire program in question when Bennett made that comment, and as I said in my previous post in this thread, I didn't think his comment was out-right racist. Just poorly thought through. I understand that the callers question was about abortion in connection to the contributions to the social security fund. But you seemed to gloss over the fact that the caller made no reference to race at all. What was Bennett's intent in singling out black babies, when in my previous post, I asserted that you'd likely get similar results, regardless of the race of the babies aborted (and seem to agree)? Why did Bennett bring race into the issue the way that he did, when it wasn't necessary? He could have made the exact same point without the slightest mention of race. Enough on the Bennett side of the story.

Ok. You go on to bring this "Freakonomics" book back into it. I'm not sure about the numbers paraded in your excerpt and what they suggest, but lets assume they are true, and that you believe that the crime rate has decreased as a result of abortion. But, the kicker is that you go on to state:

Opponents of abortion whether you agree with them or not, would succeed in increasing the number of minorities' contribution to society if they had their way.

Can you have it both ways? Eliminating abortion will either increase the crime rate, or increase the number of productive citizens. Which one do you follow? Of course, it could also be a wash, but you conveniently forgot to consider that option. I'm not going to pretend to know either way, because those numbers can mean whatever someone wants them to mean. Your motivations are obvious (and not as noble as you would like to believe), so I'll reserve my right to skepticism.

Opponents of abortion believe abortion is reprehensible and believe it's initial intent had nothing to do with freedom of choice for women and more to do with eliminating a lower socio economic sector...

...You may not appreciate the rhetoric, but it is founded in a fervent distaste for abortion in general and what is believed to be the reason behind it.

I couldn't give a damn about the reasons why someone believes abortion is or should be legal or not. There are equally plausible (and some silly) conspiracy theories on both sides of the argument. The fact is, when a woman believes she needs the service, she makes that choice, not a bunch of high-falutin' elitist conservatives that believe that folks don't have the character to make those decisions for themselves. I'm gonna stop right here, because this abortion has little to with the issue you brought up, you just seem to be using it as a smokescreen.

Unlike Bennett, Athens' analogy to the topic he was addressing was clear, and the sarcasm was apparent. It was clearly about making a rash action based on unreliable information (something you seem to be doing in this very thread). People make unfounded judgments based only on race all of the time. If anything, I'd say Bennett is not nearly as skilled at employing sarcasm as Athens is, if Bennett was indeed trying to be sarcastic (and in poor taste).

... This, based I believe on a tinge of prejudice in your own heart...

If there ever were a better case for Freudian Projection...

come on. you were the first and only person here screaming "blood racism" at Athens' post, and it wasn't even founded. You seem to enjoy creating issues where they don't even exist, if only to make a purely partisan point. talk about knee-jerk...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

I had originally responded to this post yesterday but IE crashed on me and I lost it so I will attempt to redo it tonight. The thing is under Sadam OBL had no power in Iraq.

The war has resulted in first the country destabilized, allowing for terrorist groups a new home after they where uprooted from Afghanistan,

second created misery and desperation for the ppl in Iraq which allowed more people to be easily converted into OBL cause and made the US into the enemy of Muslims allowing further momentum for OBL and his cause.

The US should have stuck to Afghanistan and finished the job there before splitting forces between the two.

I think 60 000 US troops are in Afghanistan now, 10 000 Canadians, and XXX number of a bunch of other countries.

If the US focused on Afghanistan only, with the support of other nations there would be 400 000 troops there keeping the peace, capturing all elements of the Taliban and putting a end to the original hotbed of terrorists. In stead a new soup was created just rip for OBL. And now Iraq is so week, he may even get a entire nation when the US leaves Iraq. My post for this was better yesterday but I think im getting across my point.

http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/ansar.html

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

mojo,

So you believe that the deaths of 10's of thousands of Iraqi's was a necessity to secure the US oil supply and the US economy?

Is this not placing the value of a US life over and above the value of an Iraqi life?

If you truly feel this was justified, if someone lined 9,000 or 25,000 people up in front of a wall and said "mojo, pull the trigger a few thousand times and you will secure the US economy and oil interests"

...could you? Would you?

If you believe that you should pray to GWB, and give him thanks, then surely you would line up the innocents and pull the trigger yourself, wouldn't you?

In the film, "K-19: The Widowmaker," Harrison Ford orders a small number of men to go into the sub's nuclear reactor to make repairs that would save, not only the ship and the rest of the crew, but perhaps the world.

Their exposure to the radiation was certain to be fatal.

He ordered them to their deaths.

They went.

They died.

What a BASTARD!

Right?

EDIT: And another thing we must remember is that in any military engagement one hopes for the lower end of an estimated casualty range (if one has this kind of engagement in mind...some military actions you want to MAXIMIZE the casualties) and those casualties don't just all happen all at once. Every day you are hoping the innocents are 0 casualties and the enemy combatants 100% NEUTRALIZED. (Killed, wounded, captured or just laid down their AK-47 and went home)

Shooting them in dribbs and drabbs would be more like it rather than all at once because every day you think/hope that the killing will stop. You just don't know when.

If you kill/wound/capture or discourage the right one or ones then the fighting really MIGHT stop. So you don't just say 9,000 all at once.

Another thing you can't understand is really important.

THE NUMBER OF DEAD IS REMARKABLY LOW.

Remarkably Low.

You keep that in mind.

How many lives did it cost the Allies and the French and the germans to liberate France?

Then compare that to how many it cost to liberate Iraq from Saddam.

Remarkably low.

Then, how many people, so far, has it cost to keep al Qaeda from bringing down the economies of the Western world (afaik, that also includes Canada)?

REMARKABLY LOW.

And finally, how much oil did YOU use today?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by himself

This train is officially de-railed...

I never noticed the thread on the Bennett topic in the PL. If i had seen it, I would have at least read through it, if not posted in it. If the thread isn't dead, I may post to it.

I heard the entire program in question when Bennett made that comment, and as I said in my previous post in this thread, I didn't think his comment was out-right racist. Just poorly thought through.

Then, in the interest of being consistent, should've also mentioned this to Athens.

I understand that the callers question was about abortion in connection to the contributions to the social security fund. But you seemed to gloss over the fact that the caller made no reference to race at all.

What mention of race was there prior to Athens' comment???

What was Bennett's intent in singling out black babies, when in my previous post, I asserted that you'd likely get similar results, regardless of the race of the babies aborted (and seem to agree)?

No, not to the same extent.

Why did Bennett bring race into the issue the way that he did, when it wasn't necessary?

It wasn't any less necessary than Athens' statement. He did this to counter an absurd argument with an absurd example, just as Athens' did. Yet, because this man is a conservative he's insensitive. You know enough about Athens to know his political leanings and decided he's not capable of the same insensitivity regardless of what he says. He's been given a pass of sorts based on your prejudice and Bennett is not allowed the same freedoms.

He could have made the exact same point without the slightest mention of race. Enough on the Bennett side of the story.

Athens could have as well.

Ok. You go on to bring this "Freakonomics" book back into it. I'm not sure about the numbers paraded in your excerpt and what they suggest, but lets assume they are true,

Let's assume Justice Bureau statistics and Census Bureau statistics are true? Okay, fair enough.

and that you believe that the crime rate has decreased as a result of abortion. But, the kicker is that you go on to state:

No, you cannot commit genocide based on the assumption that all people born into a specific socio-economic condition will grow into a criminal. I believe abortion is wrong and it's affecting the minority in a much more profound way. I thought you were sensitive enough to understand this. Apparently, it depends upon who delivers the message. I'll see if I can find a liberal friend to post it so you'll trust the sources.

Can you have it both ways? Eliminating abortion will either increase the crime rate, or increase the number of productive citizens. Which one do you follow? Of course, it could also be a wash, but you conveniently forgot to consider that option.

I'm assuming there's a point in here somewhere, but I just can't find it. I believe all babies have the opportunity to be productive citizens. Facts are facts and the success of Planned Parenthood in forwarding their cause while affecting your race more profoundly than mine find myself a little flummoxed in all this. Keep thinking about it, the irony may eventually occur to you.

I'm not going to pretend to know either way, because those numbers can mean whatever someone wants them to mean. Your motivations are obvious (and not as noble as you would like to believe), so I'll reserve my right to skepticism.

Statistics and numbers can mean whatever you want them to mean? Do you manage a household budget or budget of any kind? You can't solve a problem you're unable to identify.

I couldn't give a damn about the reasons why someone believes abortion is or should be legal or not. There are equally plausible (and some silly) conspiracy theories on both sides of the argument. The fact is, when a woman believes she needs the service, she makes that choice, not a bunch of high-falutin' elitist conservatives that believe that folks don't have the character to make those decisions for themselves.

A. more women oppose abortion than support it. B. I'd much rather leave important decisions up to high-falutin' conservatives than a woman who can't decide when to open and close her legs and what the implications are. I'll remember this argument came from a liberal the next time you're requesting tax dollars for some othe social ill.

I'm gonna stop right here, because this abortion has little to with the issue you brought up, you just seem to be using it as a smokescreen.

good idea. You got called to the carpet for blathering partisan BS.

Unlike Bennett, Athens' analogy to the topic he was addressing was clear, and the sarcasm was apparent. It was clearly about making a rash action based on unreliable information (something you seem to be doing in this very thread). People make unfounded judgments based only on race all of the time. If anything, I'd say Bennett is not nearly as skilled at employing sarcasm as Athens is, if Bennett was indeed trying to be sarcastic (and in poor taste).

If there ever were a better case for Freudian Projection...

So, I'm a racist now? Is it the facts I presented that rubbed you the wrong way?

come on. you were the first and only person here screaming "blood racism" at Athens' post, and it wasn't even founded. You seem to enjoy creating issues where they don't even exist, if only to make a purely partisan point. talk about knee-jerk...

Because I'm tired of xenophobic liberals telling me I'm xenophobic. I'm tired of homophobic liberals telling me I'm a homophobe. I'm tired of racist liberals calling me racist. I'm tired of liberals calling me intolerant when they illustrate time and again that their tolerance only applies to those who think like they do. Call it a cause of mine. I will locate and stomp out hypocracy.

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Originally Posted by James L

mojo,

So you believe that the deaths of 10's of thousands of Iraqi's was a necessity to secure the US oil supply and the US economy?

Is this not placing the value of a US life over and above the value of an Iraqi life?

If you truly feel this was justified, if someone lined 9,000 or 25,000 people up in front of a wall and said "mojo, pull the trigger a few thousand times and you will secure the US economy and oil interests"

...could you? Would you?

If you believe that you should pray to GWB, and give him thanks, then surely you would line up the innocents and pull the trigger yourself, wouldn't you?

In the film, "K-19: The Widowmaker," Harrison Ford orders a small number of men to go into the sub's nuclear reactor to make repairs that would save, not only the ship and the rest of the crew, but perhaps the world.

Their exposure to the radiation was certain to be fatal.

He ordered them to their deaths.

They went.

They died.

What a BASTARD!

Right?

EDIT: And another thing we must remember is that in any military engagement one hopes for the lower end of an estimated casualty range (if one has this kind of engagement in mind...some military actions you want to MAXIMIZE the casualties) and those casualties don't just all happen all at once. Every day you are hoping the innocents are 0 casualties and the enemy combatants 100% NEUTRALIZED. (Killed, wounded, captured or just laid down their AK-47 and went home)

Shooting them in dribbs and drabbs would be more like it rather than all at once because every day you think/hope that the killing will stop. You just don't know when.

If you kill/wound/capture or discourage the right one or ones then the fighting really MIGHT stop. So you don't just say 9,000 all at once.

Another thing you can't understand is really important.

THE NUMBER OF DEAD IS REMARKABLY LOW.

Remarkably Low.

You keep that in mind.

How many lives did it cost the Allies and the French and the germans to liberate France?

Then compare that to how many it cost to liberate Iraq from Saddam.

Remarkably low.

Then, how many people, so far, has it cost to keep al Qaeda from bringing down the economies of the Western world (afaik, that also includes Canada)?

REMARKABLY LOW.

And finally, how much oil did YOU use today?

Points of interest on mojo's reply for those playing along at home:

1) More entertainment analogies? Ugh. I guess I should be happy that you didn't post more song lyrics. Your K-19 (terrible movie btw) comparison is a poor one. In the movie, and the true story that the movie was loosely based on, Harrison Ford's character was in direct control of a group of people who belonged to the same nationality, and a group of people who avowed to give their lives in the service of both Harrison Ford's character, and their country. How you can link this to 9,000 - 25,000 innocent foreigners being killed in an invasion is beyond me.

2) You are right that we can't say it is 9,000 all at once. The number is constantly going up.

3) I used about $10 worth of oil today.

4) You say the number in question is remarkably low (minimum 9,000 innocents killed as a direct result of American attacks). You even ask me to remember that. Would you feel the same way if the 9,000 included YOUR family? Would you sacrifice 9,000 of YOUR countrymen to secure oil? Seeing as how numbers seem to mean a lot to you, would you sacrifice 10 of YOUR family members to secure US access to oil? A US citizen is worth no more than an Iraqi, or a Japanese, or an Australian, etc. Would YOU make that sacrifice, or is it easier to downgrade the size of the numbers when it is strangers half way around the world?

5) YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER THE DIRECT QUESTION ASKED OF YOU!!! Classic mojo. Tap dancing around the topic, but evade the direct questions. Here, I will repost the question for you:

Originally Posted by James L

If you truly feel this was justified, if someone lined 9,000 or 25,000 people up in front of a wall and said "mojo, pull the trigger a few thousand times and you will secure the US economy and oil interests"

...could you? Would you?

If you believe that you should pray to GWB, and give him thanks, then surely you would line up the innocents and pull the trigger yourself, wouldn't you?

Please, answer this question, in addition to the ones I asked in point number 4 of this post.

You have been called out many times by people besides me for evading direct questions. You have done it with my questions in the past. You have posted pages of babble, song lyrics, poetry, movie quotes, etc in a weird effort to seemingly point something out in what you think is a clever fashion, while at the same time never answering direct questions.

For the benefit of myself and all the people who watch you do this, please honestly answer the direct questions asked of you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Because I'm tired of xenophobic liberals telling me I'm xenophobic. I'm tired of homophobic liberals telling me I'm a homophobe. I'm tired of racist liberals calling me racist. I'm tired of liberals calling me intolerant when they illustrate time and again that their tolerance only applies to those who think like they do.

Where's the SMACKDOWN award when you need one?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by himself

come on. you were the first and only person here screaming "blood racism" at Athens' post, and it wasn't even founded. You seem to enjoy creating issues where they don't even exist, if only to make a purely partisan point. talk about knee-jerk...

Actually, I was that person. Page up and take a look.

But I like ebuddy's reply. He said very succintly exactly how I feel.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by loki74

Well as long as I refrain from flaming/trolling you... and everyone else refrains from flaming/trolling everyone else. (wishful thinking, I know ) Hopefully the mess won't be quite as bad as usual.

My biggest reason for supporting the war is that I think that Saddam was indeed an evil dictator who was dangerous to his people and possibly to us. Regardless of what he was doing re: terror and WMD's, IIRC he WAS in violation of a number of UN sanctions, and nothing was being done. I mean, sure I've heard it said that it is not the US's responsibility to "police the world", but it is my opinion that someone must do it, and I'm glad the US is stepping up to the plate, regardless of what it will do to how the world views us.

It is also true that there are many other evil dictators out there, who deserve to be taken out just as much as Saddam. This is where the WMD thing comes in. Regardless of whether or not the allegation turned out to be true, their presence (the allegations I mean, not the weapons) has a major impact on a decision. Take this info from the CIA or FBI (or whoever provided/corroborated the info) on top of the fact that Saddam was violating UN sanctions and was known to be dangerous, and I think that's cause enough.
.

Leaders of Darfur: evil
Israel: also ignored UN sanctions, the world

Shouldn't we treat these countries the same way?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< We all know GWB lied to invade Iraq. >>

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!
GWB didn't lie, he repeated intel that was faulty. The UN, the U.K. Russia and others made the same assumptions. Think back far enough to remember the run around the UN Inspectors got trying to know for sure. Jeez!

I guess if you keep saying it long enough they will believe it?

He had plenty of reason to question the intel before the invasion, and he has had plenty of opportunity to admit to making mistakes. Apparently his version of Christianity encourages his belief of himself being a God that doesn't make mistakes.

He has blamed things on the intel and has given us the impression that mistakes weren't made so that he could escape accountability.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by James L

Please, answer this question, in addition to the ones I asked in point number 4 of this post.

You have been called out many times by people besides me for evading direct questions. You have done it with my questions in the past. You have posted pages of babble, song lyrics, poetry, movie quotes, etc in a weird effort to seemingly point something out in what you think is a clever fashion, while at the same time never answering direct questions.

For the benefit of myself and all the people who watch you do this, please honestly answer the direct questions asked of you.

If you get him to answer you, please share with us what your successful technique was. I've tried just about everything I can think of.


The whole securing access to oil premise seems to assume that Iraq is the only source in the world, assumes that we would be successful in making some sort of underhanded deal, and also implies that saving us a few bucks is something we ought to be proud of doing.

Bush is no Christian.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

Points of interest on mojo's reply for those playing along at home:

1) More entertainment analogies? Ugh. I guess I should be happy that you didn't post more song lyrics. Your K-19 (terrible movie btw) comparison is a poor one. In the movie, and the true story that the movie was loosely based on, Harrison Ford's character was in direct control of a group of people who belonged to the same nationality, and a group of people who avowed to give their lives in the service of both Harrison Ford's character, and their country. How you can link this to 9,000 - 25,000 innocent foreigners being killed in an invasion is beyond me.

2) You are right that we can't say it is 9,000 all at once. The number is constantly going up.

3) I used about $10 worth of oil today.

4) You say the number in question is remarkably low (minimum 9,000 innocents killed as a direct result of American attacks). You even ask me to remember that. Would you feel the same way if the 9,000 included YOUR family? Would you sacrifice 9,000 of YOUR countrymen to secure oil? Seeing as how numbers seem to mean a lot to you, would you sacrifice 10 of YOUR family members to secure US access to oil? A US citizen is worth no more than an Iraqi, or a Japanese, or an Australian, etc. Would YOU make that sacrifice, or is it easier to downgrade the size of the numbers when it is strangers half way around the world?

5) YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER THE DIRECT QUESTION ASKED OF YOU!!! Classic mojo. Tap dancing around the topic, but evade the direct questions. Here, I will repost the question for you:

Please, answer this question, in addition to the ones I asked in point number 4 of this post.

You have been called out many times by people besides me for evading direct questions. You have done it with my questions in the past. You have posted pages of babble, song lyrics, poetry, movie quotes, etc in a weird effort to seemingly point something out in what you think is a clever fashion, while at the same time never answering direct questions.

For the benefit of myself and all the people who watch you do this, please honestly answer the direct questions asked of you.

Your fundamental argument falls apart COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY,COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY,COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY,COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY, when ANY kind of science or societal progress is considered of any kind.

Constructing bridges, dams, skyscrapers. The pioneers who settled this land from the native Americans. Automotive and highway technologies and developments. Deep sea exploration. Space exploration...

All required the deaths of countless numbers of people.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT???

WWII???

MEDICAL RESEARCH???

Using YOUR tortured reasoning there's NOTHING sufficiently valuable that would be worth risking human life.

The noun idiot savant has one meaning:

Meaning #1: person who is mentally retarded in general but who displays remarkable aptitude in some limited field (usually involving memory)

Yet, many (most?) all life saving operations and procedures were first developed as experiments where lives were risked and lost. But what about THOSE precious lives??? How can you bear to serve as a hospital orderly knowing that your work has only been made possible at the deaths of millions of innocent victims???

And I'm CERTAINLY NOT going to let you off the hook as YOU are helping the medical industry
which wastes...

44000 - 98000 deaths by PREVENTABLE medical errors in hospitals each year

!!!

You are helping contribute to this industry!!!

And the people YOU would line up against the wall and shoot would all be in medical gowns! And the number is going up!

I'd say you absolutely ARE NOT an idiot savant because your memory is VERY brief.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Bush is no Christian.

True. Remove Christ and he's just another Ian.

When it comes to justifications for this war, I think Boy George said it best:

Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go. Loving would be easy if your colours were like my dreams, red gold and green, red gold and green.

Sorry. Went all mojo2 there for a sec.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If you get him to answer you, please share with us what your successful technique was. I've tried just about everything I can think of.


The whole securing access to oil premise seems to assume that Iraq is the only source in the world, assumes that we would be successful in making some sort of underhanded deal, and also implies that saving us a few bucks is something we ought to be proud of doing.

Bush is no Christian.

There were several reasons the US invaded Iraq. Oil is the one that makes most sense.

Here are some of the OIL related reasons.

1. To safeguard the millions of barrels a day that goes to the US and OTHER nations, too.
2. To DENY this financial resource to al Qaeda.
3. In helping to rebuild Iraq and provide the people with a new government and a better way of life than they had before Saddam's fall, the oil would help pay for the rebuilding.

We should be proud of the President that he kept our life support system running.

You wouldn't possibly know of, or be able to convincingly troll, his Christianity.

You don't know ENOUGH about Christianity to make such a claim!

Please SIT DOWN.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

True. Remove Christ and he's just another Ian.

When it comes to justifications for this war, I think Boy George said it best:

Sorry. Went all mojo2 there for a sec.

Don't be misled by disparaging comments, people LOVE a well placed song, well chosen and one that they are familiar with.

You're completely WRONG about his Christianity, but your face may ache so much that you can't think straight.

Speaking of thinking straight, how Christian is it to have an on-going sexual relationship with a hallucinating, psychedelic transexual, outside of marriage, where you leave as soon as you, *ahem* come? (Alright, everyone, all- together now, say it with me: "BOOTY CALL!") That IS the nature of the lyric, right? Wait...I withdraw that question as it only serves to de-rail this fine thread.