Middle east outcome

[Kenyth]

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.

[SuperChuck]

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.

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.

[JHarri31]

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.

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

[cigar no baka]

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

[SuperChuck]

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

Ah, good. The name-calling has started...

[cigar no baka]

Ah, good. The name-calling has started...

Bullshit. The one who started this thread started the name calling, or didn't you notice?

[bigpoppapuff]

baka...or someone....please try to explain the good job that shrub is doing.. (as his approval ratings continue to drop faster than a gown on prom night)....


you should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to believe in him....

[cigar no baka]

baka...or someone....please try to explain the good job that shrub is doing.. (as his approval ratings continue to drop faster than a gown on prom night)....


you should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to believe in him....

Bush is doing a great job on everything I am aware of, including the Iraq war, except:

Border control and immigration. I am so disappointed in the Republican party that I am seriously considering not voting for the first time since I was 18.

Stem cell research. I find the benefits to outweight the risks and am very disappointed.

As for shame, you should be ashamed of your own party as it has become a party of uncontrolled taxing, destroying our rights, fracturing our nation into groups of people who use minority rule to rule through the court system and violate our sacred right as voters to vote our own destinies, and refusing to realize that morality does play a huge part in our culture and should not be sacrificed to the altar of PC-think, uber-minority rights and perversion.

[Cabaiguan Juan]

I love being an independent because it helps avoid all these politically charged discussions. What sucks is I can never find a guy running who has all the same idea's as me, so I end up voting for some retard who ends up voting for the most popular guy's ideas and next thing I know, I helped with the degradation of society. So, in advance of all the stupid things my next vote-receiver does, I apologize for the dumb-ass popularity chaser that I will ultimately put into office.

[SmokinDVM]

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

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.
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.