How Do You Check To See Who Is

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 July 2004 - 01:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 July 2004 - 01:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 01:38
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?

Okay, Rip-

Take this one assertion and back it up, figuratively, literally, or any other way you think you can.

Please do not presume to offer Fahrenheit 9/11 as proof.

Also be aware that qualifiers such as "indirectly responsible" will not suffice either. [/b][/quote]
Whatever reason we use for the war on Iraq we cannot deny that there was "colateral" casualties and as time passes this still occurs.
by definition Bush may not be considered liable for a charge of killing children but as a result of the decision to invade these children (and adult civilians) did pay with their lives.
Of course it has been found by our own government that the reason given at the time of the vote to go to war, WMD, was in fact based on bad intelligence of which they cleared themselves of all blame but does that clear them of responsibility?
It all boils down to opinion and which side of the fence one is looking at and with war one is allowed a huge amount of immunity.

I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer.....even though i haven&#39;t approved of the invasion from before day one, But perhaps you could convince the parents of the dead children of that.
As i said it would come down to opinion and sitting on sides of fences

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 July 2004 - 08:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 11 July 2004 - 08:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 01:06
<!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker

@11 July 2004 - 01:38
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?

Okay, Rip-

Take this one assertion and back it up, figuratively, literally, or any other way you think you can.

Please do not presume to offer Fahrenheit 9/11 as proof.

Also be aware that qualifiers such as "indirectly responsible" will not suffice either.

Whatever reason we use for the war on Iraq we cannot deny that there was "colateral" casualties and as time passes this still occurs.
by definition Bush may not be considered liable for a charge of killing children but as a result of the decision to invade these children (and adult civilians) did pay with their lives.
Of course it has been found by our own government that the reason given at the time of the vote to go to war, WMD, was in fact based on bad intelligence of which they cleared themselves of all blame but does that clear them of responsibility?
It all boils down to opinion and which side of the fence one is looking at and with war one is allowed a huge amount of immunity.

I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer.....even though i haven&#39;t approved of the invasion from before day one, But perhaps you could convince the parents of the dead children of that.
As i said it would come down to opinion and sitting on sides of fences [/b][/quote]
God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 07:22
God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh?

I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer

It&#39;s not extreme, it&#39;s a sad fact of war and would be used in any inquiry.
Are you denying that innocent deaths have occured? of course not. But one has to look at it from both sides to see the point clearly.
Even when one disagrees with a theory one has to be able to understand how the theory could be reached to be able to understand another persons opinion.
lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country.

Fact: innocent civilians have been killed

Fact: it wasn&#39;t intentional

Fact: someone gave the order to go to war



So who has innocent deaths on their conscience?


It goes with the territory

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 07:22

God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh?

What part of vidcc&#39;s post would you characterize as "extreme", j2?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 July 2004 - 09:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 11 July 2004 - 09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 07:22
God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh?

I don&#39;t think Bush is a child killer

It&#39;s not extreme, it&#39;s a sad fact of war and would be used in any inquiry.
Are you denying that innocent deaths have occured? of course not. But one has to look at it from both sides to see the point clearly.
Even when one disagrees with a theory one has to be able to understand how the theory could be reached to be able to understand another persons opinion.
lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country.

Fact: innocent civilians have been killed

Fact: it wasn&#39;t intentional

Fact: someone gave the order to go to war



So who has innocent deaths on their conscience?


It goes with the territory[/b][/quote]
Just to clarify:

Bush hasn&#39;t killed any children, to my knowledge, and the language in question indicated otherwise.

Conscience, or the lack thereof, was not mentioned.

The "other-side" of your "both sides" formulation is not entitled to such loose use of words or intent, no matter what "feelings" are involved, vid.

I really hate to bring it up, but, as Clinton holds the singular honor of having ordered our troops into action on more occasions than any other president in the last fifty years, do you think it at all possible he might bear "responsibility" similar to that you wish to lay at Bush&#39;s feet?

I am reminded of the old goose/gander adage.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+11 July 2004 - 10:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 11 July 2004 - 10:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 07:22

God forbid anyone on this board should stray from the extreme rhetoric that is the norm, especially when discussing Bush.

Easy to write, easy to read, easy to believe; I guess that&#39;s good enough, huh?

What part of vidcc&#39;s post would you characterize as "extreme", j2? [/b][/quote]
None.

The subject was Rip&#39;s post:

QUOTE (Rip The Jacker @ 11 July 2004 - 01:38)
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?

[Rat Faced]

@ J2K4...

Yes, Mr Clinton is "Responsible" for all the innocents killed as a result of any action he ordered.

Are you merely pointing this out?



You begin to sound like Israel, whereby any criticism is hailed as "anti-semetic", ir-respective of whether that criticism would have been leveled at anyone else doing the same thing.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 July 2004 - 10:36
@ J2K4...

Yes, Mr Clinton is "Responsible" for all the innocents killed as a result of&nbsp; any action he ordered.

Are you merely pointing this out?

Yes.

Is it wrong or off-point?

Is Rip&#39;s supposition more accurate? Relevant?

I think my point was ultra-clear, Rat:

Drop the agenda-serving rhetoric and debate.

To post as Rip did and expect not to be called on it?

Surely enough of that goes on already.

Using similar technique, I can say that Bush killed Uday and Qusay, too, although that is not true.

I can also lay the Waco massacre on Clinton, and wonder why no one seems offended or willing to be reminded of it.

If I were inclined, Rat, I could bury this board with rhetoric, cut-and-paste bullshit, you-name-it.

I could play the game the same way others do, but I don&#39;t; I don&#39;t because it would be too fucking easy.

There are a very few of us here who post their own intellectual work-product.

It shouldn&#39;t be too much to ask for more of that; after all, are we here to share our opinions, or the opinions of others?

What I see here, much too often, is the equivalent of the old school-yard tactic:

"Let&#39;s you and him have a fight"

Not much water being carried around here lately.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 08:12

I really hate to bring it up, but, as Clinton holds the singular honor of having ordered our troops into action on more occasions than any other president in the last fifty years, do you think it at all possible he might bear "responsibility" similar to that you wish to lay at Bush&#39;s feet?

I am reminded of the old goose/gander adage.

i did take bush out of the subject so you already have your answer.
And as for the number of occasions that&#39;s kind of misleading to the point of shameful spin. It&#39;s like saying that someone who goes to a buffet and has 4 plates with one slice of cake is greedier than one that has 2 plates with 3 slices on each


During the administration of Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace than at any time in its history.
source

[Snee]

Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 07:38
1. Not about the war. Bush was arrested for drunk driving, and lied about it.

Isn&#39;t lying about your mistakes sort of a time honoured tradition for politicians everywhere.

Not very shocking, is it.