One Soldier Killed In Attack (Iraq)

Centcom ^ | 08-27-03

[Mr. K]

yes, except THIS is an ACTUAL 'for the children' argument involving actual real children being torured and killed. Is that OK with you if Saddam kept doing that?

This is opposed to the fictional 'for the children' argument liberals make for pretty much any idiotig new government program. ("This new gun control law is 'for the children'" - see any difference? )

[arete]

If that's your argument, why aren't we in and all over Africa or a lot of other places where kids are suffering and being killed daily? Dumb position cause we've proven time after time that we don't care about the world's kids. Of course, most of the world's kid's aren't sitting on a bunch of oil and I'm sure that makes a difference in this case.

Richard W.

[Mr. K]

oh I see, now your switching your argument to this: "Ok if you are right why arent we applying this same rule elsewhere"...

Well, OK we should

[Mr. Silverback]

Me: An American soldier has died for freedom.

You: Ahh yes, I see now. Thank you for the enlightenment.

Me: You're welcome. The need was obvious.

[Mr. Silverback]

So you base all your questions on the misleading and questionable premise the administration propagandists and Washington carnival barkers put out as reasons to justify being in that swamp and getting our sons and daughters killed and expect answers?

That is absolute 100% crap you are putting out, and you know it. You sound like an ANSWER organizer, and just like them, you're debating via slander, sans facts. You and Austin say we shouldn't be there, and have characterized those of us who disagree as lesser thinkers. I posted my five questions as an opportunity for you guys to share your great wisdom. Austin apparently ran and hid, while you claim that you don't have to answer the questions. Now, try concentrating real hard and get this concept: You advocated a point of view (albeit without any real evidence offered) and I am challenging it. Instead of screaming "propaganda" and running away like a wussy baby, what you do here is defend your point of view with facts. It's called "debate."

Now, if you want to try to maintain that Iraq was not a terror-sponsoring state, good luck-- It's not like the White House was the only source on that one. If you want to maintain that the Bush Doctrine is illegitimate, good luck. But here's the thing: Unless you're an intellectual pantywaist crybaby, you need to make your case.

Now, let's try this again. I've even been nice enough to add an extra question. BTW, if nothing else, you should answer number 4. I'm really fascinated by all the folks who think "Well, Afghanistan's done, so it's Miller Time."

Finish one or more of the following sentences and show us the boffo supra-genius reasoning that lead you to it:

1. Iraq was not a terrorist state, and my case for this assertion is...

2. Even though Iraq harbored, trained and funded terroists, it was not a legitimate target because...
(perfect chance to tell us why the Bush Doctrine sucks!)

3. We should not be fighting the War on Terror at all because...

4. Fewer than 500 total casualties in a war that started with the slaughter of 3,000 noncombatants on our home soil is a huge problem because...

5. If we leave terrorist states up and running, I foresse the next major terroist attack will be prevented by...

6. The military record and/or golf schedule of major adminstration officials has bearing on the prosecution of this war because...

[skeeter]

Of course, most of the world's kid's aren't sitting on a bunch of oil and I'm sure that makes a difference in this case.

Please provide proof of this assertion.

For example, provide proof we have taken ONE barrel of oil from Iraq without paying the market price. Or proof we are manipulating global oil prices using Iraqi oil.

That shouldn't be too hard, right?