I'm glad to know that there are moral degrees of killing, however, I need the Bush administration to clarify some of the details for me. Are civilian deaths by "terrorism" better or worse than civilian deaths caused by other acts of aggression like the dropping of an atomic bomb on a civilian target? Also, what about deaths caused by environmental pollution, like, for example, when US companies with factories in other countries just dump their toxic waste into the drinking water? Are those sad, unintended consequences of global monopoly capital, or are they just as bad as some other form of killing?
Oh, and since we're discussing hierarchies, would someone please explain to me the most efficient way to decide who gets evacuated from a disaster zone? Apparently, American and European lives are worth rescuing, but the Lebanese are not. How "American" do you have to be to get rescued?
I think this is just another example of how bush and his people are out of touch with reality. I do not understand how they can constantly act and speak as if they are living in a different reality.
They have spun for so long that their brains are scrambled.
Bolton is nothing more than a hired goon, a hit man for the thuggish gang of the four horsepeople of the poxy-lipsy, bent on riding the world straight into Armageddon.
here's the deal- we have to get him out in 2007 period. vote and correspond immediately with whoever is elected in november to push for this. we cannot have these thugs kill the un in favor of nato. yes, the un needs to be fixed but nato is not the way to go if we want to stop the war madness.
12 comments:
More mumbo-jumbo.
And our American rockets and cluster bombs don't kill civilians in Iraq?
What a bag of crap.
How many kinds of dead are there?
If it's a bush appointee, it's an asshole. That's the only kind of people he knows.
I don't understand? How can he say this? Dead is dead.
I'm glad to know that there are moral degrees of killing, however, I need the Bush administration to clarify some of the details for me. Are civilian deaths by "terrorism" better or worse than civilian deaths caused by other acts of aggression like the dropping of an atomic bomb on a civilian target? Also, what about deaths caused by environmental pollution, like, for example, when US companies with factories in other countries just dump their toxic waste into the drinking water? Are those sad, unintended consequences of global monopoly capital, or are they just as bad as some other form of killing?
Oh, and since we're discussing hierarchies, would someone please explain to me the most efficient way to decide who gets evacuated from a disaster zone? Apparently, American and European lives are worth rescuing, but the Lebanese are not. How "American" do you have to be to get rescued?
I think this is just another example of how bush and his people are out of touch with reality. I do not understand how they can constantly act and speak as if they are living in a different reality.
They have spun for so long that their brains are scrambled.
This is why Bolten had to be a recess appointment, some in Congress knew he was an idiot.
If those deaths are ok, why not stem cells?
no member of the bush administration has any morals whatsoever.
OK now I am pissed!! Expect something from me soon. Time to turn up the heat.
I guess the "pro-life" philosophy does not extend to everybody...
Bolton is nothing more than a hired goon, a hit man for the thuggish gang of the four horsepeople of the poxy-lipsy, bent on riding the world straight into Armageddon.
Bolton's Ambassador to the UN status seems to give him all the powers of a rightwing politician but immunity from representing the people or morality.
Pete.
here's the deal- we have to get him out in 2007 period. vote and correspond immediately with whoever is elected in november to push for this. we cannot have these thugs kill the un in favor of nato. yes, the un needs to be fixed but nato is not the way to go if we want to stop the war madness.
Post a Comment