37 Americans killed in Iraq in one day, yesterday

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Baghdad, Iraq - A U.S. Marine helicopter transporting troops crashed (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_helicopter_crash) Wednesday in the desert of western Iraq, killing 31 people, American military officials said. It was the deadliest crash of a U.S. military helicopter in Iraq. The helicopter went down about 1:20 a.m. near the town of Rutbah, about 220 miles west of Baghdad, while conducting security operations. The aircraft was transporting personnel from the 1st Marine Division.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Camp Pendleton, California, USA -- The father of a U.S. Marine killed in a helicopter crash Wednesday in Iraq said his son was due to come home (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/pendleton/index.html) in March.

[/ QUOTE ]

I expect the American media will absorb the news with appropriate sobriety and present an overall objective report of the situation in Iraq.



[ QUOTE ]
Washington, DC, USA-- After the revelation that another columnist who supported his administration's policies received government money, President Bush said Wednesday that he disapproved of the practice and wanted it to stop (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/paid.pundits/index.html) .

[/ QUOTE ]

[Broken Glass Can]

31 killed in Iraq helicopter accident...

<font color="red"> That bastard Bush! </font>

11 killed in California train derailment...

<font color="red"> That bastard Bush! </font>

He's responsible for all that goes bad to Americans, right?

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
31 killed in Iraq helicopter accident...

<font color="red"> That bastard Bush! </font>

11 killed in California train derailment...

<font color="red"> That bastard Bush! </font>

He's responsible for all that goes bad to Americans, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Silly post. Your analogy makes no sense.

[Wake up CALL]

You missed the sarcasm Toro.

[Toro]

No, I don't think so, if your point is that we shouldn't hold Bush any more responsible for what's going on in Iraq than for the train wreck. If not, I'm kind of lost as to what your point is.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't think so, if your point is that we shouldn't hold Bush any more responsible for what's going on in Iraq than for the train wreck. If not, I'm kind of lost as to what your point is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you obviously think we should, you are beyond hope.

EDITED FOR CLARITY:

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't think so, if your point is that we shouldn't hold Bush any more responsible for what's going on in Iraq than for the train wreck. If not, I'm kind of lost as to what your point is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you obviously think we should you are beyond hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am beyond hope when it comes to Bush's policies but that's not the point. If you want to argue that Bush's policy in Iraq is correct, do that. But making an analogy of soldiers killed in battle who were sent by the Commander in Chief to innocent people killed in a train wreck is as I said in my original post, silly.

[Wake up CALL]

Using your logic it is also the fault of the employers of the people killed on the train that they were injured. You see how you are blinded by your hatred of Bush? It seems to stop logical thinking.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
Using your logic it is also the fault of the employers of the people killed on the train that they were injured. You see how you are blinded by your hatred of Bush? It seems to stop logical thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you could come to that conclusion. My logic is this. I think Bush's decision to stay in Iraq is wrong. Therefore, soldiers killed under his orders are his responsibility. The people killed in the train wreck were the victims of an unfortunate accident caused by the guy trying to commit suicide.

One thing in no way relates to the other. It's amazing that you could call me illogical when your analogy is totally illogical.

[Wake up CALL]

Again, using your logical premise. I think the employers of those on the train were wrong to expect their employess to commute to work by such a dangerous means of transportation when they could have just moved their facility closer to their employees. They must be held accountable since that is your reasoning for blaming Bush for a helicopter accident in a sandstorm in Iraq.

The fact that you believe (wrongly I might add) that our troops should pack up and leave Iraq ASAP is not logical when using that to blame Bush for the accident.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Using your logic it is also the fault of the employers of the people killed on the train that they were injured.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Wake, why stop there?

Those train-crash deaths are also the fault of every citizen of the U.S.A. for their participation in and support of a system which elected Bush who started the Iraq war which led to the deaths in Iraq (a sort of Algeresque refrain).

The entire world is pretty easily explainable when viewed through the lens of the Teensy-Weensy-Spider.

[Toro]

This is just too silly to keep responding to. As John McClaughlin says, bye bye.

[MMMMMM]

Toro,

I think Wake's point is that you are carrying the doctrine of extension of accountability too far.

Also, Wake is pointing out that you are partially hinging the culpability aspect of it on your own conclusion that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place. Would you still feel that the train deaths are Bush's "fault" if you thought Bush was right to go in to Iraq in the first place?

[Toro]

This is how I interpeted his original post. He was sarcastically trying to say that it was just as ridiculous to blame Bush for the train wreck deaths as it would be to blame him for the soldiers deaths in Iraq.

I thought it was a silly analogy. Of course it's ridiculous to blame the train wreck deaths on Bush but if the Iraq policy is wrong and of course this is subject to great debate, then Bush has to take responsibilty for the loss of American lives as he is the one who put them in harms way.

Just as I would blame General Custer for the massacre of his troops. It was his bad judgement that put his troops in harms way so he has to take the blame. If history shows that Bush's judgements in Iraq were faulty then he bears that responsibilty.

[mojorisin24]

Regardless of what you think of the decision to invade Iraq, you're just an idiot if you think we should pull our troops out at this point.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of what you think of the decision to invade Iraq, you're just an idiot if you think we should pull our troops out at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an idiot then. The longer we stay, the more American lives will be lost and as in Vietnam, there will be no difference in the result whether we leave now or two years from now.

[Wake up CALL]

Toro I don't think you are an idiot, just misinformed. I can easily understand how you might form your opinion listening to left wing propaganda. All you need is some worldly experience and unbiased input to learn that sometimes life is shades of gray not black and white.

[Toro]

I'm not basing my opinions on Iraq on left wing propaganda or any other. It's based solely on my gut feelings that tell me that this is going to turn out just like Vietnam.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not basing my opinions on Iraq on left wing propaganda or any other. It's based solely on my gut feelings that tell me that this is going to turn out just like Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured it out. You are Ted Kennedy!! He is the only member of Congress who keeps spinning the war in Iraq as akin to the (key word coming up boys and girls so pay close attention) quagmire in Vietnam.

[Toro]

Very glib, but we would do well not to ignore history. We stayed in Vietnam for so many years simply because we refused to admit it was a mistake and couldn't figure out a way to get out and save face. I see that happening again.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I see that happening again.


[/ QUOTE ] I certailny hope you are correct, leaving Iraq would be a mistake so serious that I shudder to consider the consequences.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see that happening again.


[/ QUOTE ] I certailny hope you are correct, leaving Iraq would be a mistake so serious that I shudder to consider the consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're obviously going to have to agree to disagree on this issue but just so I'm clear of where you are coming from let me ask you this. Do you think it was a mistake when we pulled out of Vietnam and should we have stayed and as the proponents used to say "finish the job"?

[Wake up CALL]

I was there for 13 months and followed orders. Agreeing or disagreeing with US government policy was not a viable option. I am not knowledgeable enough to know when was too late or not. The problem is the Vietnam discussion is a red herring and completely irrelevant to the war in Iraq. Any attempt to compare the two is ludicrous and misleading. The comparison is only useful insofar as it brings emotions into what should be a strictly objective decision.

[Toro]

You didn't really answer but that's okay. Thank you for your service.

[Wake up CALL]

Sorry Toro, I really tried to answer as honestly as possible. I don't know if we pulled out too late, too early or right on time. I don't know if anyone alive has a correct answer to your question. I am sure many people think they do but it must be an opinion and not a fact once something is done how could you tell what would have been different? It is not like rabbit hunting through the deck in a game of holdem.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it was a mistake when we pulled out of Vietnam and should we have stayed and as the proponents used to say "finish the job"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why dont you ask some "re-educated" Vietnamese...the ones that lived that is.

[ThaSaltCracka]

wow, this thread was definitely hijacked.

The helicopter accident was tragic, and unfortunately stuff like this happens, but that doesn't make the loss any easier. Pray for their families people.

R.I.P.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Toro, I really tried to answer as honestly as possible. I don't know if we pulled out too late, too early or right on time. I don't know if anyone alive has a correct answer to your question. I am sure many people think they do but it must be an opinion and not a fact once something is done how could you tell what would have been different? It is not like rabbit hunting through the deck in a game of holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

After living through it, and being there, and having 30 years to read and think about it, you have no idea about Vietnam. Yet Iraq is perfectly clear to you? (And Ted Kennedy is the only one who doesn't get it!!) What, do you read Arabic, but not Vietnamese?

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
Using your logic it is also the fault of the employers of the people killed on the train that they were injured. You see how you are blinded by your hatred of Bush? It seems to stop logical thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not very good at logic or any of that stuff, but I would think that if an employer sent men on a train over an unsafe bridge or without training or without brakes on the train--yeah I'd hold him accountable--or sent them on a life endangering mission that was stupid unnecessary and under false pretenses. (whether you think that of Iraq or not) But these metafor things are often over my head. and I didn't even realize I was a blinded liberal, after 10 years of cursing every newspaper I read in San Francisco. I really am not very smart I guess.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using your logic it is also the fault of the employers of the people killed on the train that they were injured.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Wake, why stop there?

Those train-crash deaths are also the fault of every citizen of the U.S.A. for their participation in and support of a system which elected Bush who started the Iraq war which led to the deaths in Iraq (a sort of Algeresque refrain).

The entire world is pretty easily explainable when viewed through the lens of the Teensy-Weensy-Spider.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes the voters who voted for bush should feel guilty for those deaths in the middle east, both american and iraqi civilian. you are really smart. by the way, how do you get a 171 on an IQ test without being able to do 8th grade math?:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1587679&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1

Where can I take that test?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I really am not very smart I guess.


[/ QUOTE ]

You'll get no arguement from me.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
31 killed in Iraq helicopter accident...

That bastard Bush!

11 killed in California train derailment...

That bastard Bush!

He's responsible for all that goes bad to Americans, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush is a bastard regardless of whether things go well or badly. The fact that his promises of US troops being met with flowers and kisses haven't actually panned out only shows that he's irresponsible and dishonest, in addition to being a bastard.


q/q

[ACPlayer]

leaving Iraq would be a mistake so serious that I shudder to consider the consequences.

Another well considered Wake UP opinion. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
wow, this thread was definitely hijacked.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you gotta give it to BGM. He has a knack for diverting attention.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow, this thread was definitely hijacked.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you gotta give it to BGM. He has a knack for diverting attention.

[/ QUOTE ]I am just surprised his first response was to defend Bush instead of saying some condolescences for the dead.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you still feel that the train deaths are Bush's "fault" if you thought Bush was right to go in to Iraq in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

William Burroughs would envy your cut-up technique.



[ QUOTE ]
You are carrying the doctrine of extension of accountability too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, right. When soldiers are killed in a campaign ordered by the Commander-in-Chief, holding the Commander-in-Chief ultimately accountable for the soldiers' deaths is going too far.

You are so not making sense anymore.<font color="white">. </font>

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I am just surprised his first response was to defend Bush instead of saying some condolescences for the dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have more faith in him than I, I'm not all that surprised.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of what you think of the decision to invade Iraq, you're just an idiot if you think we should pull our troops out at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, let's see. Effectively you are saying that no matter what we were thinking at the beginning of a round ("I am sure I glimpsed an Ace in his hand" or "He is practically bust, so he's probably going All-in at the next round in this NL tourney no matter wha he holds"), we should ignore it when the round starts and use only what we have in front of us.

Do you think this amounts to a winning approach ?

And when do you think (approximately) that it would be a good time to leave Iraq, then?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow, this thread was definitely hijacked.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you gotta give it to BGM. He has a knack for diverting attention.

[/ QUOTE ]I am just surprised his first response was to defend Bush instead of saying some condolescences for the dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus hijacked his own thread in the very first post. Perhaps you missed the bit about the press being objective, and the part about pumping the Bush Radio Payolla scandal.

Clearly, he wasn't posting about the crash, he was posting about how bad Bush is, the crash was just another argument in the presentation.

We should all honor the soldiers who are fighting for freedom around the world. They are sacrificing for us, and it is terrible that their tragic deaths are used as another way to make a political attack on Bush.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
...he wasn't posting about the crash, he was posting about how bad Bush is, the crash was just another argument in the presentation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted up the news about the Americans killed and commented that we should not be expecting any serious analysis of the event or the general circumstances of the war in Iraq, on account of the deaths. The reason being that the media is in the pockets of the Bush administration.

You can take that to mean that I'm only interested about Bush and not about the dead. You think that if there were no dead, I would not post up that hilarious link about those journalists taking money from the government?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

You are carrying the doctrine of extension of accountability too far.


[ QUOTE ]
Right, right. When soldiers are killed in a campaign ordered by the Commander-in-Chief, holding the Commander-in-Chief ultimately accountable for the soldiers' deaths is going too far.

You are so not making sense anymore..

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Cyrus...our Commander-In-Chief, our President-, in WWII was "culpable" for American deaths in Europe? They were killed in a campaign ordered by him, were they not?

Allow me to 'pre-empt' an illogical objection which I prophesy coming from you;-)...you are about to say WWII is not comparable to the Iraq war. And of course it isn't--but that is besides the point, in the most literal sense of the word. If the war is justified, then is the President "culpable", "at fault"? And since it is debatable as to whether or not the Iraq war was justified, that cannot be a hinging argument for Bush's culpability in those soldiers' deaths--since it was merely the previous poster's opinion that the war was unjustified.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I ignored that tidbit, although that would be an interesting topic to discuss in a different thread.

anyways, that crash was tragic, and really it could have happened anywhere, even in the U.S.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
I ignored that tidbit, although that would be an interesting topic to discuss in a different thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or we could discuss it in this thread since Cyrus brought it up here and talk about the tragedy of the crash in a different thread.

[ QUOTE ]

that crash was tragic, and really it could have happened anywhere, even in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely, which was the point of my first reply in this thread.

Funny how we agree on the issue, but you want me not to post because you choose to selectively edit out the part of the OP that you want to ignore./images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how we agree on the issue, but you want me not to post because you choose to selectively edit out the part of the OP that you want to ignore.

[/ QUOTE ] I never said I didn't want you to post. Usually I try to ignore things which have zero relevance to a thread though. What Cyrus brought up, while intriguing, really has nothing to do with this story.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funny how we agree on the issue, but you want me not to post because you choose to selectively edit out the part of the OP that you want to ignore.

[/ QUOTE ] I never said I didn't want you to post. Usually I try to ignore things which have zero relevance to a thread though. What Cyrus brought up, while intriguing, really has nothing to do with this story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant "not to post in this thread." Cyrus was the first to mention Bush. Just because the subject of the thread was "37 Americans killed in Iraq in one day, yesterday" doesn't mean that other issue can't be brought up in the thread, which is what Cyrus did, and I responded.

This exchange is silly, a thread can only be hijacked if people let it. If no one wanted to talk in this thread about the crash specifically, that is not due to me.

[mosta]

what percentage chance do you think that this crash was the result of a rocket attack and not just bad weather? (this is what some Hong Kong media is reporting as claimed by some local sources.)

My vote: 60% rocket 40% complete accident

I'm going to write my friend who is a flight surgeon in Wuerzburg to try to get the inside rumor.

[Cyrus]

You used the word "culpable" and "culpability" numerous times in your post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1625994&amp;page=150&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;fpart=). But the word I used was "accountable", not "culpable". The Commander-in-Chief must be held accountable for the deaths he causes of the soliders in his command. Something which you seem to desperately want to avoid!

I can't help noticing your intriguing use of the word "culpable", though! I ascribe it to a projection of the obvious sense of guilt some people of your camp feel about the whole Iraqi affair, magnified by the death of 37 Americans in one day.

[ QUOTE ]
If the war is justified, then is the President "culpable", "at fault"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Like I said, the U.S. President must be held [i]accounable for the deaths he causes -- whether the war he instigates is "justified" or not. If it turns out that he sent those men to die for a "good cause", then he too is "justified". If it turns out he sent them to die for petty and stupid reasons, then he is guilty of their deaths, i.e. culpable.


Here's yer dictionary :
[ QUOTE ]
cul·pa·ble adj. Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. See Synonyms at "blameworthy".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
ac·count·a·ble adj. Liable to being called to account; answerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope the fog has cleared a little. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

Come on Cyrus you know your POINT in wishing to "holding the President accountable" for those deaths is some sort of assignment of culpability.

Nice try at a technical evasion, though. But we all know what you were thinking just as well as you do.

I should hope, for your sake, that you do not telegraph your desires so readily in poker, and then compound the slip-up by such an obvious attempt at a cover-up.

[Cyrus]

You're losing it -- and it's going fast too.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Come on you know your POINT is ...
We all know what you were thinking ...
You telegraph your desires so readily ... and then compound the slip-up by such an obvious attempt at a cover-up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me recap what happened here, to show how ridiculous you can be :

&gt;&gt; I post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1618742&amp;page=151&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;fpart=5#Post1632595) the news about the 37 Americans getting killed. In the same post I doubt that the American press will evaluate properly the incident or seriously examine the situation in Iraq, for many reasons; one reason being that some journos are ON THE TAKE from the administration!

&gt;&gt; You butt in (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1619213&amp;page=151&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) with the following howler: "You are carrying the doctrine of extension of accountability too far. You are partially hinging the culpability aspect on your own conclusion that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place."
As if the issue of accountability (your word!) for any soldiers that die in combat stops short of their Commander-in-Chief!

&gt;&gt; Obviously I point out (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1624658&amp;page=151&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) that "Whenever soldiers are killed in a campaign ordered by the Commander-in-Chief" it is perfectly natural to "hold the Commander-in-Chief ultimately accountable for the soldiers' deaths". My meaning is clear: The C-in-C is never above criticism. His actions are to be questioned at some point in time. If he dir right, OK. If he didn't, he should face the music.

And, by the way, let me state the obvious: I hold Bush responsible for every single death in Iraq, both Iraqis' and Americans', because the war that Bush stared was and is a stupid and counter-productive war.

&gt;&gt; Predictably, you come back (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1625994&amp;page=151&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) with a non sequitur involving World War II! "(sarcastically) Our Commander-In-Chief in WWII was "culpable" for American deaths in Europe? They were killed in a campaign ordered by him, were they not?"

But who said anything about "culpability at all times"??

I asked for "accountability at all times"! I want the C-in-C to be held accountable every time he causes deaths to happen, yes!

And as to whether the C-in-C is to be cleared or found guilty (culpable) of errors in judgement, that will depend on the analysis of his actions. You ask, in the same post, "If the war is justified, then is the President "culpable", "at fault"?" No, dear, the answer is, No, he isn't. If the war “is justified”, then casualties are to be expected. Iraq is not a “justified war”, however, so the deaths of Americans and Iraqis in that war are on him – and on anyone who supports his madness.

...If this kind of “retort” is what we can look forward to by your sticking around to further grace this forum with your “171 IQ” /images/graemlins/cool.gif, then I shall regret your not following your own resolution to take a sabbatical. Rest it awhile, won't you?

[lastchance]

o0.

So, MMM... is wrong even though you pretty much state in this post that you were trying to imply that the Commander-in-Chief was culpable?

Obviously, there are two different issues here. Should the President be accountable at all times, and is the President culpable?

I'm figuring that Cyrus is (lamely) playing a mind game on MMM...

[MMMMMM]

Come off it, Cyrus...anyone in this thread (or practically anywhere else, for that matter) who is calling for Bush "to be held accountable for those deaths in Iraq" is really and not-so-subtly calling for Bush to be considered culpable for those deaths.

You are playing a definition game when the intent is clear. Technically speaking you may be right, but what you are arguing now is not what you or anyone else really meant when originally calling for Bush to held accountable for those deaths--in this thread or any other.

The more we interact, the more I think Bruce Z. was right about you (that "winning" an argument is what matters by far the most to you on these forums).

But don't worry Cyrus I still think you are a good egg albeit a slightly cracked one.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
So, MMM... is wrong even though you pretty much state in this post that you were trying to imply that the Commander-in-Chief was culpable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because he didn't just want the Dub exonerated for deaths in Iraq, he posited that the C-in-C cannot be held accountable for any such deaths! (He gave some reasons too, for that argument!)

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, there are two different issues here. Should the President be accountable at all times, and is the President culpable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. And, under normal circumstances, it should be logically YES on the first question and DEPENDS ON EACH ONE'S TAKE ON DUBYA'S GUILT on the second. I was already clear that I consider Bush to be guilty as hail. No two ways about it.

But with M in the debate, things are never normal, bless 'im.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm figuring that Cyrus is playing a mind game on M

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan Quayle has already commented on M's mind that it's a terrible thing, too wasted.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You are playing a definition game when the intent is clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will continue to hammer this down your brain until it's either mended or cracked. No, this is no "definition game" and no you're not BruceZ. (Not yet.)

1. I wanna see the US President, in his capacity as a C-in-C, always held accountable for his actions in military matters. (Something which you disputed! And your text (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1619213&amp;page=151&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;fpart=) is still up to check your nonsense out.)

2. In view of the situation in Iraq and because I believe that (even in hindsight) George W. Bush was in grave error to go to war, I consider Bush to be guilty of the deaths of Americans and Iraqis in that war, deaths that include the deaths of those 37 unfortunates. I already made clear my position about Dubya's guilt, in this thread. (Note that the parents of some of those 37 killed also think that Bush is guilty for their sons' deaths. Talked to any of 'em lately?)

If you were as honest as you pretend to be, you would simply agree with me on the first point and we would agree to disagree on the second one. No big deal.

But you prefer to press on with the usual convoluted chaff, which I care not to address.

[MMMMMM]

As I said, you may be right technically speaking. I'll state again, though, that anyone who called for Bush to be held 'accountable', more or less really meant 'culpable'. I don't believe that you or others who initially posted such calls meant them solely in the precise sense of the dictionary definition of the word.

If that is precisely and completely what you meant, then more power to you.