If preemptive strikes are justified....Follow

Yes, I was trying to prove that you are an idiot, and I agree with your assessment.

Put that logic down, you are going to hurt yourself, it is way too powerful for an imbecile like you. First of all, you're holding it upside down and backwards.



Is Iraq our enemy? What would nuking Iraq accomplish, would it end the war on terror in a decisive victory?

Did you read the bit about the nukes in Japan actually saving Japanese lives?

Since the Japan bombs, the status of nukes has elevated from conventional warfare, to a doomsday device, a last resort in all occasions, and inhibits anybody from using them.



The problem in Iraq has very little to do with Ahmed, the sheep herder, picking up an A-K and teaching the Americans a lesson. Who do you think we are fighting over there.

In addition, I would say what the Americans are fighting over there, to a large degree, is ignorance. And a society that has lost hope, and thus goes to extreme measures.

Furthermore, if the Americans did pull out, do you think there would be peace there? Everyone would just put down their weapons, and that would be that.

After the first Gulf war, it has been speculated that the only reason Saddam was left in power was to avoid the current situation. It seems quite plausible to me. Also, back in the Saddam days, Saddam was considered moderate compared to many of the other factions, who were waiting in the wings, to usurp power, if the west ever removed Saddam. So here we are, Saddam and his fear tactic and iron fist are all gone, and now all the nut bar factions are bidding for control.

First step, make the Americans leave.
Second step, destroy any who oppose the acquisition of power.
Third step, kill all the infidels.
Forth step, bask in Allah’s glory while performing as many female circumcisions as possible.



Fu[b][/b]ck you ******! Again, leave my logic alone, try getting ahold of something a little less advanced.


Edited, Sun Oct 3 02:04:59 2004 by Reinman

Japan was engaged in an imperialistic war across the eastern hemisphere which included attacks upon the United States which required the United States to defend itself.

Iraq was.. well.. not involved in 9/11 in any way nor did it pose any credible threat to the US.

I'd spell it out further but I'd need puppets and crayons.

I was simply stating that at least bush Sr. had a drop of intelligence left in him. That gene apparently wasn't passed down to bush jr.

to all of you stupid @#%^tards who keep ******** about the oil[all of you],the oil is a terrorist target,think about it.


Nuclear facilities weren't secured. If you're a terrorist which one are you going to blow up?

Don't be so such a fool. The oil was secured because it had value, which is fine, but it wasn't secured because it was the most likely terror target.

You've really got it all figured out, haven't you.

Anyway, that was such a load of crap, I can't believe it. I fully support killing the enemies population base. Without people, their government will not be recieving tax money and it will choke of their ability to make war, problem solved. In addition, blowing up factories is all fine and good. The problem lies in that as soon as you blow up one factory, the bloody people start building another one. Kill the people and you end the problem.

How many americans would you kill to save 1,000,000 ****?

How many americans would you kill to save 1,000,000 Iraqis?

A line of reasoning that absolutely legitimises 9/11.

I consider conservatives to be expendable. Weed out the problems in this country while saving iraqi lives.

Did you not see what I meant? I did not mean to just sacrifice American lives to save others, I said that if we could have dropped a bomb in America AND saved BOTH American and Japanese lives by doing so I wouldn't be any more mad at the government. I personally would not sacrifice any American lives to save any of anyone elses lives, I was just saying that sometimes the lesser of two evils is the better option. In this scenario killing 500,000 or so people(yes mostly innocent) was a better choice than killing some 3,000,000 or so if the war was drawn out by other means. That is all, I didn't mean anything about the value of a specific regions life value.

Mark ups for everyone in this debate! I respect everyone opinion even if I disagree.