Search results

Out of curiosity, which MA's are you using? (don't see it noted on the chart anywhere)

Yeah, what was the deal with that? EIA leak, or just rampant last minute speculation?

Thanks for gracing us with your opinion ... what do we owe you?

I got your point. I just think that by comparison, the gravity of the issue in the Bush case magnifies the significance of the hypocrisy to where we shouldn't casually dismiss it as a mere "technicality". I think we're getting off the issue of the Bush statement here again. But I'll bite ...

I think we're forgetting one critical element in this analogy ... some drunk drivers don't end up killing innocent people. But ALL people who start wars inevitably do. So yes, comparing Bush's actions in Iraq to drunk driving isn't exactly right. We should instead compare Bush to an airline...

Caught a little move 42.50-54.50 ... nice waking up today.:cool:

My answer to the parent scolding analogy is this ... there is no comparison here. We're talking about the taking of human life, not some childhood punching match. Therefore the "technicality" has quite a bit more significance. You raise an important question with WWII. Inflict millions of...

Nutmeg you're right, we're not going to solve or change anything here. I just wanted to see whether that specific Bush talking point struck others the same way it struck me. Apparently we have a polarized group here. Anyway, agree or disagree, I thank all you guys for your participation.

Obviously he can - Bush does ad nauseum. I don't think he should. Imagine being the parent of an Iraqi child killed or maimed in the war and hearing that. Zzzzz is right - collateral deaths in a DELIBERATE war is deliberate killing on some level. If you don't think so then THAT, my friend...

I'm not saying I necessarily believe the US is directly responsible for ALL the civilan deaths in Iraq ... it's complicated at this point. But certainly for a large number, yes.

Let me try this one more time, a different way ... What number would you place on Iraqi and Afghan women and children who were killed as a result of coalition fire, bombs, hand grenades, rockets, air strikes, etc.? If the number is greater than zero, then Bush is a hypocrit. GWB quote...

Actually, that's not really doubling the position. This is: 1 ... +2 (=3) ... +6 (=9)... +18 (=27) ... It gets real big real fast. And you need a 33% retrace from your last entry to break even.

If that's what you inferred from my statements then you are the fool. I'm simply calling out Bush on his rhetoric, which seems to disregard the fact that our actions have caused many more times over the number of civilian deaths that occured on 9/11.

It's very simple: the hypocrisy is in Bush's accusing the enemy of being willing to kill innocents while obviously we are too. Be it right or wrong that we invaded Iraq, let's just not pretend we weren't (or aren't) willilng to kill women and children to "meet our objectives". Where is the ad...

FTF let me pose a simple question to you ... is it or is it not hypocritical of us to accuse our enemies of being "willing to kill innocent women and children to achieve their objective"? (This was not intended to be a dem vs GOP debate).

One could argue that those 15,000 casualties are an indirect result of our continued occupation of Iraq. The region has become a magnet for terrorists, thanks to us. Not sure I would trust those figures anyway (especially the "141").

Yes ... SPX double-bottomed at YTD high -100 which was near the 200dma (close enough).

GWB keeps using the point that terrorists are "willing to kill innocent women and children to achieve their objectives" as part of the justification for our continuing efforts in Iraq (heard him say it at least twice in this morning's press conference). Of course in chasing down terrorists, we...

Nice use of the thread to promote your book.

Should be an interesting battle about 10 points down from here at the 200day MA. Thanks everyone for some great posts this week. Great thread - thank you B1S2.