Bush: "Innocent Women and Children"

[tomahawk]

Quote from nutmeg:

Imo all viewpoints are correct but the arguement seems to have become issues of reasonable reality vs literal concepts of inter changing the words "murder" and "kill" and the pointless arguement to assign a label "hypocrite" which one may debate all day but provides no outcome or solution.

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.

 

[hapaboy]

Was it technically hypocritical to say? Yes, just like when a parent raises a child, the father is a hypocrite to tell his child not to strike other children although he struck other children himself when he was a child.

Was it necessary to say? Yes. Fools the world over need to be reminded that, as dddooo says, Al Qaeda and Co. gladly and DELIBERATELY kill innocents to achieve their objectives. The father raising his child not to strike does so even though he himself is guilty of having done so, but the reason for doing so is clear.

Will moral equivalent moonbats like the Zzzztroll ever understand that, and that there is a big difference between bin Laden and Bush? NO. If anything, they would argue that Bush is far worse.

Tomahawk, yes or no - the US was wrong to oppose Hitler in WWII because by doing so we helped cause the deaths of millions of innocents?

 

[CowboyBlue]

I am sorry dddooo, i am a hardcore right winger, but if you actually believe more iraqi's are dying at the hands of terrorists than at the hands of the U.S.A. you are a fucking lunatic, BUSH is a disgrace to the right wing and everything it stands for.


I have a question for you, how does the United States get out of this war without civil war in iraq??? This was probably the stupidest fucking war ever, the only way it will end is in more innocent iraqi bloodshed. The bottom line is there will never be peace in the middle east, a dictator like Suddam was necessary, and just watch a new dictator who is just as bad(if not far worse) will end up taking over. (this of course after another million innocent iraqis die)

Quote from dddooo:

We are not discussing the war in which thousands of innocents have died due to the deliberate preemptive offensive by the US military?
The overwhelming majority of them were actually killed by the terrorists that Bush criticized, not by american troops. And yes we're not discussing the war, we're discussing whether it's hypocritical for a war leader to criticize deliberate attacks on civilians.

Thou shalt not kill is pretty damn clear.
Tell it to your muslim friends, they are doing most of the killing, even in Iraq.

[/B]

 

[WAEL012000]

Quote from dwl603:

I am sorry dddooo, i am a hardcore right winger, but if you actually believe more iraqi's are dying at the hands of terrorists than at the hands of the U.S.A. you are a fucking lunatic, BUSH is a disgrace to the right wing and everything it stands for.


I have a question for you, how does the United States get out of this war without civil war in iraq??? This was probably the stupidest fucking war ever, the only way it will end is in more innocent iraqi bloodshed. The bottom line is there will never be peace in the middle east, a dictator like Suddam was necessary, and just watch a new dictator who is just as bad(if not far worse) will end up taking over. (this of course after another million innocent iraqis die)

You are missing one major point here dwl603. dddooo is a hard core zionist. He will engage Muslims in any offensive he makes on this forum. It is an attempt to justify his crimes in the occupied territories and prep you up for the next war with Iran which, once again, will benefit no one but his zionist state. Do not be fooled by the American flag he wraps around himself. It is one of his selling tools.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from dwl603:

...if you actually believe more iraqi's are dying at the hands of terrorists than at the hands of the U.S.A. you are a fucking lunatic, ...

We are killing Iraqis, yes. INSURGENT Iraqis. And yes, innocents WHOM WE ARE NOT TARGETING are sometimes killed by us.

Is it your contention that US forces are killing more innocent Iraqis than the insurgents, Al Qaeda, or the Iraqis themselves?!?

 

[CowboyBlue]

Quote from hapaboy:


Is it your contention that US forces are killing more innocent Iraqis than the insurgents, Al Qaeda, or the Iraqis themselves?!?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying, the U.S. is NOT intentionally doing it, but it is a factor of war, i will GUARANTEE, that the war in IRAQ has killed more civilians in its time there than terrorists have.

And anyone who buys into FIGHTTHEFUTURE'S 147 IRAQI civilian deathcount from last year needs to have their head checked.

 

[CowboyBlue]

does anyone in here actually believe that IRAQ is in a better position TODAY because of the illegal U.S. invasion??

Does anyone in here actually believe that when the U.S. retreats with their dick between their legs IRAQ will be better off than it was pre war??

 

[nutmeg]

"does anyone in here actually believe that IRAQ is in a better position TODAY because of the illegal U.S. invasion??"


IRAQ is only a staging platform for the U.S. Whether Iraq is better off is only secondary to the primary objective of having a military presence in in the Middle East.

Women and children may not be innocent civilians. Exactly what does Al Qada's military uniform look like and at what age are these women and children drafted into jihad.

 

[FightTheFuture]

Quote from dwl603:

Yes that is exactly what I am saying, the U.S. is NOT intentionally doing it, but it is a factor of war, i will GUARANTEE, that the war in IRAQ has killed more civilians in its time there than terrorists have.

And anyone who buys into FIGHTTHEFUTURE'S 147 IRAQI civilian deathcount from last year needs to have their head checked.

That was an old post from January. Update: In 2006, there were 225 Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans and Islamic Terrorists.

In other words, the US soldiers are not killing civilians by the millions as you enjoy making everyone believe.

If there were more than 225, you would never hear the end of it on the anti-war, anti-US media.

This has turned into a peacekeeping mission years ago. US soldiers are protecting civilians from each other and terrorists. US soldiers are giving life and limb to protect these people. Then you have the nerve to say otherwise.

 

[tomahawk]

Quote from hapaboy:

Was it technically hypocritical to say? Yes, just like when a parent raises a child, the father is a hypocrite to tell his child not to strike other children although he struck other children himself when he was a child.

Was it necessary to say? Yes. Fools the world over need to be reminded that, as dddooo says, Al Qaeda and Co. gladly and DELIBERATELY kill innocents to achieve their objectives. The father raising his child not to strike does so even though he himself is guilty of having done so, but the reason for doing so is clear.

Will moral equivalent moonbats like the Zzzztroll ever understand that, and that there is a big difference between bin Laden and Bush? NO. If anything, they would argue that Bush is far worse.

Tomahawk, yes or no - the US was wrong to oppose Hitler in WWII because by doing so we helped cause the deaths of millions of innocents?

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 casualties or allow a sadistic maniac to take over Europe and eventually threaten our own freedom here in the US - that was the choice we faced. Some would argue the price for our freedom was too great, despite the inevitable outcome had we not taken on the Axis. Don't get me wrong, I'm exceedingly grateful to the folks who made those tough decisions and to those who paid for our freedom with their lives, willlingly or unwillingly. But was it done in the right way, at the right time, and with the utmost regard for minimizing collateral damage? - I can't answer that. It's beside the point anyway, because my issue here is not the current military activity itself, but Bush's use of the hypocritical statement to justify himself. It represents to me a lack of acknowledgement of the innocent deaths he himself is responsible for, whether one believes their deaths were necessary or not. If you'd asked me whether it would have been wrong for Roosevelt to chime on constantly about Hitler's willingness to kill innocent people - I know it's a little out of the box - but yes, I think that would've been hypocritical as well. Just think about it.

The decision to knowingly cause massive innocent casualties, especially when the legitimacy of the motives is not crystal clear to everyone, is a big big deal.