Law School Discussion

IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2006, 12:09:58 PM »
What exaclty does "slaughter" have to do with a debate about the merits of the Lincoln and Bush administrations? There's no debate about whether people died (& are dying) because of those decisions. The debate is on the merit of the decisions. At least that's how this thread began.

redemption

Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2006, 12:15:47 PM »
Hello smart one: I think that the idea might be that people being slaughtered is relevant to a debate on the merit of the decision(s). Well done, though. High marks for class participation.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2006, 04:06:10 PM »
What exaclty does "slaughter" have to do with a debate about the merits of the Lincoln and Bush administrations? There's no debate about whether people died (& are dying) because of those decisions. The debate is on the merit of the decisions. At least that's how this thread began.

you wrong, skippy.  yes, we all "know" they dying, but we still like to pretend it really just bowl game.

that why war supporters get mad when, for example, they simply read names of dead american soldiers on nightline.  or why mad at guy who has poster with iraqi casualty statistics in window right next to recruiting station.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2006, 05:37:30 PM »
As you both change the subject again...

You're fighting for a label - slaughter. It implies that the war is wrong because people die and for that reason alone. If so then all war is wrong and all Presidents that fight wars are wrong. Thus both Lincoln and Bush made the wrong decisions.

If you have other reasons for opposing the war - which you do - then why not articulate then? You could at least add that deception occured, but both Lincoln and Bush mislead citizens.

Whay, pray tell, did Lincoln do better than Bush? (I know you're thinking at least Lincoln met Booth).

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2006, 07:21:20 PM »
killing is slaughter.  julie declines to limit self to polite and antiseptic little words that you prefer.

julie has articulated her reasons for being against our dirty little war in iraq many times.

and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.


Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2006, 07:34:48 PM »
Better.

killing is slaughter.  julie declines to limit self to polite and antiseptic little words that you prefer.

julie has articulated her reasons for being against our dirty little war in iraq many times.

and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

You don't believe Lincoln did better? I can accept that. I don't think he did either.


Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2006, 07:36:49 PM »
well, it impossible to be worse than bush 0.  julie just saying that she not recall saying lincoln did better.  it just that he should not have resisted south's secession.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2006, 05:47:49 AM »

killing is slaughter.  julie declines to limit self to polite and antiseptic little words that you prefer.

hey jules, gotta disagree with you on this one. killing and slaughter connote different degrees. i don't think the word killing is polite or antiseptic, and it does more accurately describe what's going on sometimes.


you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2006, 05:57:52 AM »
and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

wow..... and then what would have happened? we would have shared the continent with a rival nation that had similar expansionist ambitions, right? how could this possibly have been a positive development?

also, you think it's okay for states to secede? possibly this is the right answer in terms of rights, but does not bode well for republic, no?

and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2006, 06:10:16 AM »