Toopac, I'll cut you some slack. Is your life worth the life of 100 civilians? Yes or no? I just lowered your value by a factor of 10. That should make it easier for you to answer, yes?
Since you won't answer first to a loaded question i will: No i don't believe innocent 1,000 people should die for any one life, i don't want such & never have asked for such. On the other hand you believe it's okay for people to die so you can have a private conversation, that was already private?
So you refuse to answer. While you may not be a coward, you are certainly lacking any conviction in your opinions. I'll bookmark this to remind you later that you were not willing to answer a question to justify your opinions that the 650,000 civilian deaths in Iraq are justified for your security. Tis a shame because I was looking forward to answering your question. When I read it, it was simple. But as expected, you have refused to participate, and prove that your posts are actually part of your belief system.
I do not trust ron paul supporters. I prefer real sources, not made up numbers. Thanks! "We" would indicate you. I've never seen anything of substance to indicated you are on the side of America. I could be wrong, and that's not a personal attack, just an ongoing observation. Reports are a dime a dozen. Whatever an "unembedded" journalist is. I can easily provide reports from others, including embedded journalists that would tell the truth, not an agenda. I'll answer substandard questions when mine are answered. What policy? Some people need to hide behind the Constitution more than others. I can't imagine why. Neither. It's an impractical hypothetical question. Just like if I asked you: If you had to choose between keeping terrorists in Guantanamo bay, or having America attacked again. I've never disrespected the Constitution. Our differences on the Constitution seem to be, as I've been able to understand, that I don't believe our Constitution's sole purpose (or purpose at all, for that matter) is there for the benefit of terrorists. I continue to stand behind that position.
I've bookmarked it to illustrate how someone won't answer questions as well, and how they promote enemy propaganda to make their country appear in the worst light by willfully touting debunked and inaccurate numbers to induce sympathy towards enemies of our country.
Obviously he considers more loss of life more important, than any lesser loss by the way he put forth his other question of "whats worse 3000 or 650,000", which is interesting because to a normal person both are equally bad. I thought as much: I answered his question, then instead of answering mine, he goes bitching around the forum that nobody is answering his
That sounds like something straight out of the "Sean Hannity Book Of Ripostes" as recommended by Rudolf Giuliani out on paperback.
From Wikipedia Critics of the sanctions say that over a million Iraqis, disproportionately children, died as a result of them, although other researchers concluded that the total was lower. UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000. The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture. On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it".Ironic how we had no problem selling dual use Anthrax, but dual use chlorine was a problem. You're entitled to your opinion. There are days when I think you are a lousy American as well. Embedded journalists have restricted access and participate in debriefings. Before you discount the journalist as having an agenda, don't you think it would be prudent to establish that he has an agenda, and that it doesn't agree with you in the first place? I'm not a coward, and would be willing to answer this question. I just need to know how many Iraqi civilians your life is worth. Can you give me a #? Foreign policy. Interventionism. Mercantilism. Spreading democracy with the barrel of a gun. Regime change. The war for oil. Any other policies you are unaware of? You have continually disrespected the Constitution as a document that protects terrorists, not Americans. So I ask, and you can clear this up, do you believe that the Constitution protects Terrorists more than Americans? Do you believe that the rights granted in the Constitution impede our ability to protect ourselves? Debunked and inaccurate numbers? Are these dead civilians living in a sectarian state, your enemies? With their big ass navy, air force, nuclear program and satellite systems?
Divide and conquer. That's how the neocons work. It's the most insidious marxist bullcrap and people keep lapping it up. Thankfully, millions of Americans are seeing the light thanks to aggressive journalism and access to multiple viewpoints via the internet.
Whew! For a minute there, I thought you were going to suggest it sounded like something straight out of alex jones nutty website as recommended by the terrorist supporter george galloway. Or even worse, like a nonsense thread about martial law. You can imagine my relief! This sure was a misleading thread topic, again, eh?
I asked first, don't pat yourself on the back for maintaining some integrity in the debate process. Thank you for the answer. I respect that you replied. I'm a little thrown of by the private that was already private. I'll answer the earlier question as it was stated if that is ok. Is your privacy (to not be listened to on the phone if your a suspected terrorist) worth hundreds if not thousands of American deaths?Yes, my privacy is worth it. One, I am not a terrorist. Two, when you sacrifice liberty for security, you end up with neither. Three when we lose our rights in the Constitution, we're compromising the lives of 300 million Americans. We're compromising 220 years of what has made America great. The only caveat I have is that if there is a Judicially approved warrant, then it is legal and I have no problem with it. In that circumstance, I don't even think a terrorist could argue against the legality and Constitutionality of the wiretap. In a way, the current situation is not a lot different than the McCarthy era. Where innocent people were rounded up, tried and had their lives and careers destroyed by the paranoid elements of government. It was one of the lowest times in post-Independence American history. I will not roll over to see that done again. I won't sell out the people who made America free, and laid down the legal and ethical groundwork for the greatest contract between the people and the government.
On the contrary, George Galloway was an enemy of Saddam when we were selling him anthrax to kill his own citizens. Pretty cool how we each have a brit on our sides tonight. It's like international tag team.
Thanks. As I suspected, the numbers were not from the UN as you had stated. Rather Unicef. I was not aware they were the official number keeper. Either way, it's wrong. It was not the UN reporting the numbers. What's ironic is, that saddam did this to his own people, while he and his family lived in palaces, constructed new palaces, bought expensive cars, gold plated weapons, etc. Yet *some* would try to blame their own country first, despite the truth. Poor saddam Probably those days were I'm against terrorists, huh? I've established he has an agenda. Your posting of his material confirmed such. Then I await your answer. As I said before, I will answer when you do. I like playing these games! I'm sure there are more fairy tale policies one could come up with. I was referring to real policies, not agenda driven blame America first delusion. I've only seen you invoke the Constitution when it comes to terrorists. Our forefathers did not write the Constitution to protect foreign terrorists. I'd expect you to at least know that much. However, the Constitution is there to protect people that have never served their country and ceaselessly sit around day in and day out attacking their country. Some might even be grateful for that. Yes, debunked an inaccurate numbers. Were you not aware of that? I find it amazing, since we've had this argument before. What patriotic American who defends their country day in and day out, wouldn't want to use fabricated numbers to tear their country down with?
Galloway was bought and paid for by saddam. But I can see how you would find respect in the man. I can sure that
I was watching Hannity and Gnomes earlier and they had Rudy and his wife on there mate. His wife looks kind of plasticky IMO. It was vomit inducing viewing. Hannity was literally salivating over him. He (Giuliani) played the 9/11 card heavily too (surprise surprise ) Awful stuff.
So what you actually wanted to portray was "oh Toopac claims his life is worth thousands of lives". When infact you actually said: "Yes, my privacy is worth hundreds if not thousands of lives" Kinda backfired no?
What does Unicef stand for? See the logo at the top of the Unicef site? http://www.unicef.org/ It should help you figure it out. And where are the numbers you have from the *cough* official source *cough* that disprove these numbers? I mean, if you're going to call these #s wrong, you must have another, better source, yes? You're so deep, it's depressing even for me to keep proving you are wrong. Good night old friend. Best of luck hunting in the dark for some terists tonight. Of course, they just might be terist crickets. But it all sounds the same around there, doesn't it?
Galloway made quite the idiot of NeoCon henchman Norman Coleman when he was questioned. Seems it didn't make much sense to build his case on foreign newspaper reports that have lost libel suits. Where is your proof?
No, I was just getting sick and tired of you arguing to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people for your own safety. I wanted you to commit honestly, or admit that you're merely debating as a Devil's Advocate. That's taken out of context, but given the question and my full response, yes I stand by it. Not at all. I told you I would reply, and in the future, I hope you aren't so skittish to answer my questions, knowing I will answer back in good faith. We wasted darn near an hour for you to find some intestinal fortitude. I do have a followup for you, and it's based on my answer. You see, I will defend your right to privacy even if there are lives on the line as well. So I'm wondering, if you don't think your safety is worth so many lives, then how can you possibly condone what is going on in Iraq?