Bush: "Innocent Women and Children"

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The crazed klannish try to compare Saddam to Hitler, which is lunacy. Klassic fear mongering from the mongrel right wingers.

Comparing the danger of Saddam to Hitler would be like comparing David to Goliath.

Saddam was neutered militarily, and he was not suicidal. He was just another rogue dictator, not a leader of one of the most industrialized nations on earth with the "fatherland" behind him.

Is Bush more dangerous than Bin Laden?

Sure. Bin Laden and other terrorists have very limited power, Bush's power is the greatest on earth right now, he acts with a smug sense of impunity, and the America people have meekly sat by while Bush has engineered one of the greatest power grabs in American history through his abuse of executive order.

No comparison as to who represents a greater danger and threat to human life.

If we add up all those killed as a result of the decisions of Bin Laden, then compare them to all those killed as a result of Bush's decisions, it is clear who has been responsible for more death and suffering.

Quote from tomahawk:

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.

 

[dddooo]

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)

Hmm, I am not a hard-core right-winger, in fact I am quite progressive on most issues and I've never supported the war in Iraq or Bush. Today 50 iraqis were killed and 60 wounded by a suicide bomber, I bet the US troops did not kill 50 and did not wound 60 innocent iraqis today. Given that what happened today had been happening for the last three years I am convinced that far more iraqies are dying at the hands of terrorists than at the hands of this country.

Other than that I completely agree with your post, my intention was not to defend Bush or the war but to argue that even though Bush is a disgrace and even though the war he started is a misguided quagmire, it's still not hypocritical of him to criticize terrorists who unlike him do deliberately target innocent civilians.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

What is happening in Iraq, i.e. sectarian violence that resembles, if not in fact represents a civil war is directly tied to Bush's invasion, creating a power vacuum, poor planning, etc.

The Iraq of today was predicted by war critics before the war, and our military cannot effect a political solution to what is now a political problem.

Bush deliberately opened Pandora's box, he is responsible for what follows, as the current situation, but for Bush's actions would not be taking place.

Contributory negligence at a minimum, as Bush and company ignored all the warnings from those who correctly predicted what would happen by invading Iraq without an exit strategy, etc.

No different than a drunk driver, who doesn't "intend" to kill anyone, he none the less took an innocent life by deliberately drinking, then driving. The drinking was an elective, just like the invasion of Iraq was an elective. Bush, drunk with power, inebriated with the pushing of the war by Cheney and the other neoklans and chickenhaws...Bush is directly responsible, as the buck stops at his desk. The deaths of innocent people are squarely on his head.

Quote from dddooo:

Hmm, I am not a hard-core right-winger, in fact I am quite progressive on most issues and I've never supported the war in Iraq or Bush. Today 50 iraqis were killed and 60 wounded by a suicide bomber, I bet the US troops did not kill 50 and did not wound 60 innocent iraqis today. Given that what happened today had been happening for the last three years I am convinced that far more iraqies are dying at the hands of terrorists than at the hands of this country.

Other than that I completely agree with your post, my intention was not to defend Bush or the war but to argue that even though Bush is a disgrace and even though the war he started is a misguided quagmire, it's still not hypocritical of him to criticize terrorists who unlike him do deliberately target innocent civilians.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

What is happening in Iraq, i.e. sectarian violence that resembles, if not in fact represents a civil war is directly tied to Bush's invasion, creating a power vacuum, poor planning, etc.

The Iraq of today was predicted by war critics before the war, and our military cannot effect a political solution to what is now a political problem.

Bush deliberately opened Pandora's box, he is responsible for what follows, as the current situation, but for Bush's actions would not be taking place.

I completely agree with your post, I just don't see what it has to do with the topic of this thread - hypocrisy.

I am just saying that a person who has never deliberately killed civilians has every right to criticize those who have without being hypocritical, regardless of how bad this person may otherwise be and how many mistakes, stupidities and even crimes he may have committed.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Does a drunk driver deliberately kill others?

What difference does it make, his actions of getting drunk (an elective) then driving while drunk (another elective) are directly the cause of loss of innocent life.

That we as a society rationalize away drunk driving as okay and not as bad as premeditated murder is foolish, as being drunk and killing your wife while drunk is no defense.

If a person puts themselves in a position to harm others, and do so willingly and knowingly, they are deliberately killing those who need not have died if the murdering force was not engaged.

Bush and company knew there would be lots of collateral damage, they just rationalized it away because they were Iraqi people (not Americans) and guessed correctly that the American people also didn't care about the loss of life of the citizens of the country we invaded.

Knowing that there will be collateral damage, then lobbing bombs that kill people in an attempt to gain power or have political impact is fundamentally no different that terrorists who use suicide bombing for political purposes.

Quote from dddooo:

I completely agree with your post, I just don't see what it has to do with the topic of this thread - hypocrisy.

I am just saying that a person who has never deliberately killed civilians has every right to criticize those who have without being hypocritical, regardless of how bad this person may otherwise be and how many mistakes, stupidities and even crimes he may have committed.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Does a drunk driver deliberately kill others?

IMO a drunk driver can legitimately criticize murderers and terrorists without being hypocritical. It does not turn them (drunk drivers) into good guys, they still have to be held responsible for the crimes they committed (drunk driving)...But their criticism would not be hypocritical.

And of course comparing Bush's actions in Iraq with drunk driving is hypocritical, intellectually dishonest and way too simplistic. Drunk driving is black in white, there is no downside to NOT drinking and driving, none whatsoever, it's a win-win for everyone involved and therefore the decision not to drink and drive is very easy to make. No black and white win-win situations exist in the world of international politics, when you're responsible for 300 mln americans and for the entire world every decision is a risk and a trade-off, there is a downside to everything you do or don't do.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The crazed klannish try to compare Saddam to Hitler, which is lunacy. Klassic fear mongering from the mongrel right wingers.

Comparing the danger of Saddam to Hitler would be like comparing David to Goliath.

Saddam was neutered militarily, and he was not suicidal. He was just another rogue dictator, not a leader of one of the most industrialized nations on earth with the "fatherland" behind him.

Is Bush more dangerous than Bin Laden?

Sure. Bin Laden and other terrorists have very limited power, Bush's power is the greatest on earth right now, he acts with a smug sense of impunity, and the America people have meekly sat by while Bush has engineered one of the greatest power grabs in American history through his abuse of executive order.

No comparison as to who represents a greater danger and threat to human life.

If we add up all those killed as a result of the decisions of Bin Laden, then compare them to all those killed as a result of Bush's decisions, it is clear who has been responsible for more death and suffering.

As usual the Zzzztroll reacts like a spastic colon, spewing the same fecal material without thinking.

I did not compare Saddam to Hitler, you maroon. Talk about "crazed," the troll can't even bother reading the post correctly before going off on a beligerent rant that has no credence whatsoever.

Thank you for stating publicly that Bush is more dangerous than Bin Laden. Since Bin Laden is less dangerous, you must prefer that he was leader of this country and not Bush. Ah yes, the Caliphate of North America. Wouldn't we all just love such a society - bound to Sharia law, our women in burkhas, women stoned to death for being raped or flirting, public beheadings, etc., etc.

Idiotic troll moonbat, exhibiting again that he is one stupid son of a bitch.

 

[hapaboy]

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.

US soldiers are directly, by their own weapons, killing more Iraqi civilians than Al Qaeda, insurgents, and Sunni & Shiite fighters targeting each other and innocents of their opposing faith?

 

[Stevie_G_5]

Quote from hapaboy:

US soldiers are directly, by their own weapons, killing more Iraqi civilians than Al Qaeda, insurgents, and Sunni & Shiite fighters targeting each other?

Do you raelly think that?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from tomahawk:

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.

The point of the analogy was not to infer that disciplining a child compares to the taking of human life. Of course not. The point is that Bush and the father are both technically being hypocritical. However, hypocritical though they may be, I believe both are correct to say and do what they did.

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.

You frighten me. You don't seem to understand that there are times, i.e. when a crazed fascist was intent on taking over the world, when civilized countries must do an uncivilized thing and engage in war with that crazed fascist or those like him. Because to do otherwise is to surrender and subject oneself, one's family, one's nation to the whims of that crazed fascist. That is not living in freedom. It is those who think like you that are a grave danger to your fellow citizens, because you hesitate, and actually would consider surrendering to tyranny than oppose it on the grounds that there may be significant collateral damage, which is the unfortunate price we must pay to remain free.

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.

Yes, it's hypocritical. But necessary.