Hehe, so much to say, but I'm going to abstain.
This thread has gotten completely out of control. I'm sorry I stoked the flames...
WWTKD?
Hehe, so much to say, but I'm going to abstain.
This thread has gotten completely out of control. I'm sorry I stoked the flames...
Has a 5" Member
Same here, it was fun for a couple days though.Originally Posted by SuperChuck
End of line.
WWTKD?
Totally.
Are You Threatening Me?
I agree, kind of.
But notice the name calling, and pissing and moaning came from the neocons. But wait, it's OK for them to whine like babies about those "damn Liberals" calling their beloved POTUS a POS, or trying to kill their "god", but they whine, bitch, and moan more than anyone else.
And, SuperChucks link is correct in blaming all of the civilian deaths in Iraq, since the U.S. invasion, on us. First, there was NO insurgent activity in Iraq, untill we got there. Second, our wisePOTUS and lousy staff, ignored warnings from certain advisors, and failed to consider or prepare for anything past the first week in Iraq.
So, it was our uber-intelligent POS POTUS, that destabilized Iraq, and thus led directly to thousands of civilians deaths.
To all the neocons unable to form an opinion not pre-announced on FOX "news", PUT DOWN THE KOOLAID, AND BACK AWAY SLOWLY!
Has a 5" Member
Ok, so if the insurgency/terrorism/islamo-fascism is a direct result of our actions, then they must be doing that stuff because they are pissed off at us, correct? So I'm wondering, is the solution here to appease the fascists, walk on egg-shells around them and make sure they don't get upset?
I understand where your argument is coming from, but it seems flawed to me because if a psycho commits a crime, the person who comitted the crime is at fault.
Sure, we can go round and round about how it is indirectly the US's fault, but do you think someone as unstable as terrorists are going to need a good reason to do something stupid? No, its a matter of time. I mean, 9/11 was unprovoked, and it won't be long before Iran gives the world community a reason to do something about them, same with Kim Jong.
I guess my argument is that terrorists have to be hunted, plain and simple. The whole world should feel that way. It sucks we have to do it because it causes problems, costs a shitload of money, etc. - but whose fault is it we have to go hunt them? The terrorists, that's who.
BTW, I don't really watch the news that much, but does anyone else automatically think of Inside Edition when they see that O'Reilly factor guy?
End of line.
Senior Member
Sorry guys, I don't go for the "indirect" route for fault. You can weave an infinite web of fault using that kind of logic. If I have a gun to someones's head and tell you "Don't move, or I'll shoot him!" and you move, triggering me to shoot, it's not your fault the guy is murdered, it's mine. Certainly, having the foresight to not move would have been a smarter thing for you to do, but that doesn't make the death your responsibility. There's no guarantee that if you didn't move, I wouldn't have killed him anyway.
"some people are like slinkies, they're not really good for anything but they can bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." –Unknown
"He did for bullshit what Stonehenge did for rocks." -Cecil Adams
WWTKD?
Depending on your use of judgment, you can be considered at least partially responsible. You didn't pull the trigger, but if you decided to be a hero or a fool, your action indirectly resulted in death. If a member of your family were to be taken hostage in such a way, you would want everyone to remain calm and cooperate; if some hothead did something stupid, you would certainly hold him responsible. There's some amount of judgment involved.
Similarly, if someone is driving on the wrong side of the road, causing another driver to swerve off into a telephone pole, the driver on the wrong side of the road is responsible. That driver did not directly do anything which directly affected the other driver (in fact, he never touched him). The other driver could have made a move that would not involve driving into a pole.
We hold other nations responsible for their indirect actions. Selling weapons to insurgents, for example. There's even some talk about blaming Iran for suggesting to Hezbullah that they could capture an Israeli soldier. These are things that aren't done directly, but that hold indirect responsibility.
Always a good decision
You are not looking at this properly.
The driver in your metaphor had no good reason to be in the wrong lane. He is indirectly at fault because he had absolutely had no justification for going the wrong way down the street. However, and I know this is going to piss someone off, we have every reason in the world to be in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. These countries are breeding grounds for terrorists and I fully support the notion that we should hit them before they hit us.
In your example the driver would be at fault, BUT if there was someone driving towards your house with a trunk full of explosives hell bent on killing himself and your entire family that would be a different story. If you forced them off the road and killed them then you are NOT at fault because it is in defense of you, your family, and property. Unfortunatley, if that pyscho driving towards your house happens to have his kid in the back seat that's a shame, but tough shit.
As for the selling weapons example. When weapons are sold for a known destructive purpose then said country is at fault. You cannot liken that to invading a country under the pretense of self preservation. Russia didn't sell the Iraqi's weapons for any other reason than to make some cash, not to save themselves from terrorists attacks. And NO, we did not invade Iraq for money, Oil, because anyone with a 2nd grade education, haha yes even Bush, would know that spending hundreds of billions to take over a country wouldn't be worth it to get at their oil reserves. Sorry, no, it wouldn't.
Now...I will say that I appreciate that someone with a liberal viewpoint made an attempt at a cogent argument. This breeds discussion, logic, and thought.
THANK YOU
When nothing is certain everything is possible.
Destroyer of Safiness
It's absolutely pointless to argue with dyed-in-the-wool liberals, they rarely stop frothing at the mouth spouting endless lies, hyperbole and personal attacks for you to get a word in edgewise. Just move on, let them to talk to the bare spot of ground you were standing on, maybe it will listen since no one else will
There's only two kinds of cigars, the kind you like and the kind you don't.
WWTKD?
Ah, good. The name-calling has started...It's absolutely pointless to argue with dyed-in-the-wool liberals, they rarely stop frothing at the mouth spouting endless lies, hyperbole and personal attacks for you to get a word in edgewise. Just move on, let them to talk to the bare spot of ground you were standing on, maybe it will listen since no one else will
Destroyer of Safiness
Bullshit. The one who started this thread started the name calling, or didn't you notice?
There's only two kinds of cigars, the kind you like and the kind you don't.
Are You Threatening Me?
Anyone still supporting dumbya and his neocon asshole parade, isn't one to be talking about liars. You obviously couldn't spot a liar to save your life.It's absolutely pointless to argue with dyed-in-the-wool liberals, they rarely stop frothing at the mouth spouting endless lies, hyperbole and personal attacks for you to get a word in edgewise. Just move on, let them to talk to the bare spot of ground you were standing on, maybe it will listen since no one else will
If dumbya had kicked you in the nuts(?), right after saying he would never do that, you'd still believe he never actually kicked you. It's a fragile little fantasy world you cling to.
Inside Addition? I thought Bill the lech was on A Current Affair. No matter, both were just TV's version of The Weekly World News.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks