Vice Presidential Debate Poll. Who Won?

farraday: cheveyo I'm going to ignore you until you have an actual position, don't take this to mean anything but I have the greatest respect for your ability to misconstrue, mislead, and miss the point.

That's okay, I really didn't expect you to have an answer.

I don't suppose you'd be willing to show everyone else how you think I mislead, misconstrue and/or miss the point, would you?

About the sanctions:
I suppose the question that is absent is, what do UN sanctions against Iraq have to do with the Bush administration's case to go to war?

Oh, but wait... that's not absent. I've asked it of you already! What's absent is your response. I don't suppose you'd be willing to fill in that blank, would you?

Cheney seemed to think during the debate that the reason to go to war was because of an imminent threat posed by Iraq. But of course, evidence today doesn't support that, either, so I really don't know why we invaded.

 

Really there should be no time limit unless there is *current* mass genocide AND *current* mass threat to other UN nations, including ourselves.

One could actually make a very good case for the sanctions being a form of genocide. After all, what would we think of a world leader who either killed or allowed to die 700,000 to 1.2 million people? For comparison, about 1.2 million people have been displaced as part of the genocide in Sudan.

I note that you used AND as part of your criteria. Are you then arguing that we should just sit back and allow the genocide in Sudan to happen, simply because there is not "mass threat" to us or most other UN nations? Is genocide not enough of a reason by itself?

Or are you going to claim that the deaths of over 700,000 people is not genocide?

Those deaths due to sanctions are the fault and responsibility of one person: Saddam Hussein. The sanctions were in place, not to contain Iraq as some have claimed, but to enforce compliance with the UN resolutions. All Saddam had to do in order to lift them was give the full and unconditional disclosure needed for him to comply, and yet he refused to do so.

Israel invaded and occupied based on its religious texts. I don't think that battle will ever end because both sides are completely insane at this point. The best they can hope for is that Palestine gets tired of conflict and just stops, which at this point is the only thing that could stop it. But I can certainly see why they would not want to. If we have trouble forgiving the Taliban, think about how Palestine feels about the Zionists. But I do think Palestine should give up.

Methinks you need a history lesson. Israel did not invade or occupy based on religious texts. The nation of Israel was legally formed by the UN in land owned by the British Empire, with the consent of the Brits. Israel was then invaded repeatedly and only expanded its borders as a result of those invasions.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Depends. Did you come to save me or was saving me just a happy consequence of other motives?

Follow-up question: Would saving me cost me my life?

 

Today the Bush/Cheney story is, well, don't you see, Saddam Hussein wanted out from under sanctions so that he could restart his chemical/biological/nuclear weapons programs. So we took him out because someday in the future sanctions might have come to an end and Saddam Hussein would have the funds he needed to become a threat to the security of the United States.

Pathetic.

American people: "Was Saddam a threat to the security of the United States or wasn't he?"

George Bush: "Darn right he might someday have eventually become a threat to us!"

And of course there's the refrain of: "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein." That's sounding increasingly hollow. The American people aren't better off. I'm increasingly doubtful that the Iraqis feel better off. I'm certain much of the region doesn't feel better off with this chaotic situation at their borders. Maybe the terrorists are better off, since they have all of Iraq as a training camp now with real American targets to practice on.

 

Liberals have been weak on terrorism. Our recent history shows that most Liberals have consitently been wrong when confronted with evil. Period. I sited perfect examples in the other debate thread and I challenged you to refute them after you said they were lies.

I know it isn't what they want to hear but it is a truth that needs to be faced nonetheless. And like I have said time and time again...The myopic hatred that they have for Bush stems from them attempting to fight for their political relevancy in this post 9/11 world.
They have shown complete disregard for patriotism, National Security, the War on Terror and the men and women in uniform.

Complete disregard for patriotism? Who are you to define what being a patriot is all about. People could make the argument that 'blindly following an ideological leader without question' is exactly what this countries leaders wanted to avoid. You demonstrate time and again your hatred for those who disagree with the President, and I for one am getting sick of it. Find a new line.

Myopic hatred? Who is the one demonstrating myopic hatred here? Who's coming across with more hate in his voice? I'm not a fan of the Republican Party but I'm not calling them traitors, terrorists, thugs and what have you. I consider myself above that.

Let's get this straight, Democrats have shown complete disregard for National Security and the men and women in uniform? How do do you figure, care to back up your words with something other then your ineffective and malice filled statements?

Last time I checked you had absolutely no reply to the constant record I point out (in several threads) on Bill Clinton and terrorism. Let's take another look at it shall we...

-- sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up LOGAN airport in BOSTON.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did NOT blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major critic

 

Crix, great post.

 

Cheveyo, it is really easy to tie the status of the sanctions to the latest Iraqi action. It's called the principle of disproportionate share of input.

See, we all know the resolutions that established the sanctions were mandated by the UN.

And as been already pointed out, their purpose was not to "contain" Iraq, but to enforce compliance with yet again, more UN resolutions. Containment was a fortunate side effect of said input.

Except, and here is the key, the UN did not police its own resolutions, it defered to two countries (US/UK) and basically said "handle it as you see fit."

I love analogies, as everyone knows.

Let's say I ask my neighbor to watch my 2 year old son while I leave for vacation. If I return, 12 years later, when my son is now 14, I shouldn't complain if he wants to be a doctor, when I had always planned on him being an Astronaut. My absence in his growing up kind of negates any input I have in how he is raised, eh?

Back to Iraq. If all along it were German, and French, and Russian, and Indian, and Spainish forces, along with the US/UK, that were massed in Saudi Arbia, or conducting daily No-Fly Zone missions, or forced to launch dozens of cruise missle strikes, we probably wouldn't have been in this mess.

But it wasn't.

For 12 YEARS, the US was already viewed as the aggressor in Iraq. People weren't saying that the UN killed 6,000 children a month, they were saying the US killed them.

Staged footage of a UN strike against a baby food factory wasn't shown on TV, it was a US strike.

Do you see the trend? Iraq was only contained because of direct and constant pressure applied by the US. And even then, Saddam never did comply with the mandates.

And here is the other key. Toward the end of the 90's, the sanctions were beginning to break down.

Certain European countries were calling for them to end, and certain other terror-based groups were using them as a justification for attacks.

The sanctions were never supposed to be an end in of themselves, and by 2000-1, they were becoming unenforceable.

SO, WHAT WAS THE ALTERNATIVE?

If an Iraqi invasion is "bad" simply because of the casualties it causes, how does one justify the fact that sanctions caused 50 times more?

Using that standard, why isn't 700,000 dead seen as being worse that 15,000 dead?

If the Iraqi invasion is "bad" because it didn't achieve its goals, why do 12 years of sanctions get a pass when they achieved even less?

If the Iraqi invasion is "bad" because it made people hate the US, jow does one dismiss 12 years of percieved aggression?

I don't think you can answer any one of those questions and still remain consistant.

Although I hope you take the challenge.

 

Crix said...Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

What preemptive stikes? And he turned down bin Ladin 3 times as Syria and Jordan tried to turn him over to us.
As the post is off topic I won't go any further, but c'mon man.

 

Can, you give me examples of lying. And is he saying opinion or speculation that is being interpreted as lying by people that don't agree with him.

Politically, that all sounds great MR44. There's just one teeeeeny tiny little crack in that justification:

Iraq posed no threat.

saddam hussein posed no threat.

Osama bin Laden did pose a threat.

Who did we spend tens of thousands of lives and well over 100 billion dollars to catch?

Who is still free and evading prosecution?

The Clinton administration said Iraq was no threat. Condi Rice and Colin Powell at the start of the Bush Admin said Iraq was contained and posed no threat.

So we attacked them even as we attempted to wage a half-hearted and less-than-half-committed campaign in afghansitan for the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

So, why was it imperative to act on Iraq at the time we did? How do sanctions play a key in that decision, when other sanctions are causing humanitarian issues in other parts of the world, but we do nothing to stop or change those?

Why Iraq?

 

44 said...Toward the end of the 90's, the sanctions were beginning to break down.

See my latest posts in the UN thread for the reasons for the breakdown of sanctions.

 

The Clinton administration said Iraq was no threat.

Wrong! Check your facts on this one!!
Democrats are NOT exhonerated from this...SORRY!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Crix...I will post in regards to your post shortly.

 

Using that standard, why isn't 700,000 dead seen as being worse that 15,000 dead?

To paraphrase John Kerry's worse and invoke his tone in the last debate: "Of course 700,000 dead is worse. That's not the issue".

Because first of all, 15,000 dead is only over the last year and a half. If things do NOT get worse, if this rate is the absolute worst it gets, over the same period the number of dead would be about 150,000 taking current trends (if we take 15,000 and divide 12 by 1.5 we get 120,000 and allow about 30,000 leeway because the 6 month period avter the end of the war had more casualties that is being regularly experienced right now and it doesn't seem to be about to return to that state anytime in the near future).

That's still a few times lower than the other number, assuming it is 100% correct. And the number here is not accounting for those that may be dying today because the security situation is preventing medical supplies from reching destinations and hospitals from running in general, which people would also be dying from because they aren't reciving treatment The 15,000 does not contain ANY 'hidden' casualties, simply those by violent death that are confirmed/unconfirmed. The 700,000 is of those where the vast majority have not died violently and there are massive amounts of 'hidden' casulaties. That is, those not directly killed by Saddam Hussein. To take 15,000 and say that's the number is to assume not a single person has died from malnutrition or medical backwardness in Iraq since the occupation began despite the blackouts and security situation.

But that's still not the point: the war wasn't started to help the Iraqi people. That was a by-product. The people who ran this war shouldn't be judged that they saved the Iraqi people otherwise they should be judged why they aren't saving other people ELSEWHERE, and if they claim Iraq was such a 'special case' they should lay out why that special case doesn't apply elsewhere.

Why is it necessary to send the African Union into the Sudan instead of American troops? If that is so acceptable, why not leave the invasion of Iraq to other muslim nations?

If you're standing outside and see someone choking because there's no air in a room and there's also a shiny new printer in the room that you want, and you take a rock, smash the window to get inside, take the printer and run off, what should you be judged on? That you did the entire thing to get that printer or that you happened to save a man's life by letting in air through the smashed window in the process? If the US was so concerned about Iraqi casualties, it would be making a more thorough accounting of them and not leave them to outside organizations.

The above is not to liken the US invasion of Iraq to common theft (though many may characterize it as such). Whatever the printer was -- WMDs or a terrorist network -- and whether the US was carrying it off to destroy it or have it for itself or keep it out of the hands of those it does not trust the point is the operation was hardly conducted to save the Iraqi people. If this was such a priority there would have been American interventions in Africa to no tomorrow.

 

Still no answer QR.

 

Sorry, Mr44, I didn't realize that I answered all of your questions with 1 vague answer. I'll elaborate:

SO, WHAT WAS THE ALTERNATIVE?

Continued UN [global] action.

If an Iraqi invasion is "bad" simply because of the casualties it causes, how does one justify the fact that sanctions caused 50 times more?

The invasion of Iraq was not bad "because of the casualties it [is causing]". The invasion of Iraq was bad... or more to the point, wrong... because there was no valid, solid justification for invading.

The laws of the UN (which we had until Bush been a part of--do I need to remind you that we helped create it?) states that a campaign of preemptive agression is valid only when there is valid evidence of an imminent threat.

There was none.

Using that standard, why isn't 700,000 dead seen as being worse that 15,000 dead?

1 person dead is just as bad. Quality over quantity always, in my philosophy. Having said that, sanctions were a direct consequence of Hussein's actions (or inaction). Those killed in the invasion were killed because we invaded, a direct consequence of Bush's actions, and [guilt] by association, America's actions.

If the Iraqi invasion is "bad" because it didn't achieve its goals, why do 12 years of sanctions get a pass when they achieved even less?

The goals for an invasion of Iraq were not justified. Simple as that. The invasion was not justified, therefor the deaths were not justified. As I said, sanctions were the consequence. Invasion was a choice. A costly one, at that.

If the Iraqi invasion is "bad" because it made people hate the US, jow does one dismiss 12 years of percieved aggression?

Americans have been despised for years now, both because of foreign policies and because of the impressions left by pompous tourists. What Iraq did was give people a reason to take up arms against us as a nation who otherwise would have done nothing but spout the occassional insult our way.

I don't think you can answer any one of those questions and still remain consistant.

I think I just did.

Although I hope you take the challenge.

Rest assured that life is not without an ounce of hope.

 

Chev said...Using that standard, why isn't 700,000 dead seen as being worse that 15,000 dead? [/b]

1 person dead is just as bad.

This is the reason you and I will never agree. That is one of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard you say IMO. It also shows a lack of being able to look at any situation where lives are concerned realisticly.

EDIT: ya know what? I ain't done yet. I put my own life on the line for the lives of the people of Kuiat. by your definision my life is as valuable as that entire country. HUH?
What about all the lives taken after '91 in Iraq? This should have been done loooooong ago. We were irresponsible and lazy. An entire nation suffered 'cause we were afraid to clean our mess.
Shame on anyone who thinks we should go back to that destructive policy!

 

To brutally violate Godwins law with malice aforethought... so vehicular manslaughter is as bad as the holocaust.

 

CRIX,

Complete disregard for patriotism? Who are you to define what being a patriot is all about. People could make the argument that 'blindly following an ideological leader without question' is exactly what this countries leaders wanted to avoid. You demonstrate time and again your hatred for those who disagree with the President, and I for one am getting sick of it. Find a new line.

First of all...I am NOT blindly following anyone. I am merely defending the Commander in Chief in a time of war...one that I admit I did not even vote for in the first place! I do not hate those who disagree with the President otherwise I would be hating myself because I actually do disagree with some of his policies.

Myopic hatred? Who is the one demonstrating myopic hatred here? Who's coming across with more hate in his voice? I'm not a fan of the Republican Party but I'm not calling them traitors, terrorists, thugs and what have you. I consider myself above that.

Again I am defending the Commander in Chief. My disgust for the Liberals actions over the past for years is well founded, IMO. What I see is MANY Liberals throwing the typical crap around like everything they spew is truth just because it came from a Democrat. I have never called a Democrat a traitor, a terrorist of a thug.

Let's get this straight, Democrats have shown complete disregard for National Security and the men and women in uniform? How do do you figure, care to back up your words with something other then your ineffective and malice filled statements?

I actually have given perfect examples in my posts but I really don't have to. The Liberals have backed it up for me by undermining Bush almost every step of the way in the war on terror. Putting their own politcal agenda above anything else.

Kerry's lack vote against the 87 billion to "Protest the Presidents Tax refund" is a perfect example.

Whatever happened to the REAL AMERICA??? The one that would unite behind a Commander-in-Chief during war regardless of their personal politcs?


In reference to Bill Clinton's approach to terrorism:

While your list of Clinton's accomplishments is immpressive you are missing the most important element; Bill Clinton NEVER took the proper OFFENSIVE measures to fight terrorism. Everything he did was DEFENSIVE measurement against future attack. Even Richard Clark is on record acknowledging and opposing this position taken by Clinton.

Herein lies the basic fundamental difference on why Democrats are wrong to fight the war on terror...because they don't fight. They defend. With that philosophy we WILL without a doubt be defending ourselves from terrorism on our own soil.
Their philosophy is unacceptable.

Now..on to some of the points in your anti Bush list.

Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

Bull. George Tennant was the one Bush actually listened to and told the President that WMD's were a "Slam Dunk"

HELLO!!?? Tennant was CLINTON's CIA Director!!!! Where is your outrage over him saying "Slam Dunk"??? Total Hypocracy! It has defined the Democratic Party for the longest time. Even when I used to vote Democratic.

Sandy Berger? HA!!! Shoving Top Secret doc's down his pants to cover the fact that he and Clarke altered Intell reports to downplay the severity that Al-Qaeda posed on America...they didn't want this info out
because at the time it would have hurt Clinton's re-election.

As far as 9/11: The 9/11 Report proved that neither Clinton or Bush could be blamed for the event. So you and I therefore cannot play that blame game.

Look...here's the bottomline: Both Parties spew garbage...we all know this. What is crucial is to find the foundation of what the parties represent and decide for yourself which is better for America.
My opinion? Im with the Conservatives. Why? Because I am in favor of less Federal Gov't in the private sector, less taxes, strong National Defense and Military.

 

For Qui:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Hmm, a 6-year-old quote. Can you do better? the world according to Saddam has changed a lot in 6 years, most notably Operation Desert Fox, in December of 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Hmm, still 6 years old. Still before Desert Fox.
Just to sum up all of the above:

of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them ? several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Do I need to point out the date?

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Taken out of context [again].

On 10 November 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright addressed another open meeting, this one held at the Chicago Hilton and Towers. Challenged to defend the Clinton administration's support of an economic and trade embargo against Iraq, Secretary Albright responded:

If you remember in 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded another country, he plagued it, he set fire to it, and he decided that he could control the region. Before that, he had gassed his own people.

Saddam Hussein had been acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We carried out, with the help of an alliance, a war in which we put Saddam Hussein back into his box. The United Nations voted on a set of resolutions which demanded Saddam Hussein live up to his obligations and get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

The United Nations Security Council imposed a set of sanctions on Saddam Hussein until he did that. It also established an organization that is set up to monitor whether Hussein had gotten rid of his weapons of mass destruction.

There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies. your quote is bolded for you.
source

Any questions?

 

Any questions?

Yes. Why would you make a claim that the Clinton Administration never said Saddam was a threat then disregard quotes given from DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION because they are too old?
HELLO??? Clinton has been out of office for 4 years!

Let's not start the labeling here.

 

Part of Chev's quote...The United Nations Security Council imposed a set of sanctions on Saddam Hussein until he did that. It also established an organization that is set up to monitor whether Hussein had gotten rid of his weapons of mass destruction.

Why should the world community have to "babysit" a dangerous national leader? Isn't it better, from a world perspective, to get rid of that leader? As it is only a matter of time 'til you blink and he gets what he's after. Why take that kind of chance on a leader who wasn't elected by his people?

 

Yes. Why would you make a claim that the Clinton Administration never said Saddam was a threat then disregard quotes given from DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION because they are too old?

Indeed. I should have qualified my own timeline as "at the end of his administration". Remember that time is fluid.

This is the reason you and I will never agree.

That's no surprise. I value all life, and hold each life equally valuable. What part of that statement do you disagree with?

That is one of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard you say IMO.

What makes that an irresponsible statement?

It also shows a lack of being able to look at any situation where lives are concerned realisticly.

In what way?

EDIT: ya know what? I ain't done yet. I put my own life on the line for the lives of the people of Kuiat. by your definision my life is as valuable as that entire country. HUH?
What about all the lives taken after '91 in Iraq? This should have been done loooooong ago. We were irresponsible and lazy. An entire nation suffered 'cause we were afraid to clean our mess.
Shame on anyone who thinks we should go back to that destructive policy!

Temper temper

so vehicular manslaughter is as bad as the holocaust.

The taking of a life by another human is bad in my philosophy, regardless of the method. I'm surprised that you have an issue with that. Oh wait, no, I'm not surprised.

 

1 person dead is just as bad.

This is the reason you and I will never agree. That is one of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard you say IMO. It also shows a lack of being able to look at any situation where lives are concerned realisticly.

J-Rod's kinda right on this Chev. In the end numbers do matter a heck of a lot, not matter how we would like to say how bad the death of a single person is.

 

Chev said... I value all life, and hold each life equally valuable.

This is inconsistant with what you had just said. 'Cause if you hold each life as equal, than 2 lives are indeed more valuable than 1. Now that makes sence.

By the way, I ain't as mad as I was shocked. Still love ya man.

 

"The needs of the many outway the needs of the few"

-Spock


By the way, I ain't as mad as I was shocked. Still love ya man.

You love a liberal!!??? You Traitor!

IM kidding!!!

My mom is ABB and she and I hash it out for hours. In the end, we know that we are both Americans.
Regardless of who wins this election...the only way we will win this war on terror is by uniting once again and remaining OFFENSIVE in the war on terror.

 

J-Rod's kinda right on this Chev. In the end numbers do matter a heck of a lot, not matter how we would like to say how bad the death of a single person is.

And if that one death is your son? How about your dad? Your mom?

I'm not sure exactly how J-Rod can be "right" in telling me what my philosophy should be. As a way of life, I honor every life. What you or J-Rod think of my personal philosophy does not change it.

"The needs of the many outway the needs of the few"

Come back to reality, Qui, or I'll have to remind you of the lesson of the 3rd ST movie.

Seems to me that you've realized your argument holds no weight. Why else would you attack my philosophy instead of the issue? Hmm?