Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » After Downing Street
Re: After Downing Street [message #162130 is a reply to message #162127] Wed, 29 June 2005 13:52 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
SuperFlyingEngi is currently offline  SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma:
General (1 Star)
gbull wrote on Wed, 29 June 2005 16:12

conceding what? its a public forum, get over yourself. fine, if you want me to, I will. We made loud noise made them go crazy and whatnot, thats much worse than sawing off someones head with a dull blade while their still alive.


Insurgents aren't Saddam's former government. And just because they do it doesn't make it ok for us to do it. Because we are carrying out torture so severe that people are dying from trauma-induced injuries. But I already said that, if you happened to miss it.

gbull

also, you still seem to be missing the point. Mr. Bush said we were to wage a war on TERRORISM. When in his speeches did he once say: "but we are limiting our aggression on those terrorists who have only just recently attacked or may be an immediate threat to us."


So why was Iraq such a hotspot for terrorists, as opposed to Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia? Well, I guess we should rule out the House of Saud because they're such close friends with President Bush.

gbull

and to ask the question, does the end justify the means? Ask the Iraqis, they might be able to give you that answer.


As a general rule, your argument has flaws if you believe the ends justify the means.

"SFE"

Hitler was an immediate threat to us, though, what with his being allied with Japan, Japan attacking us, and his attacking other countries in order to occupy them and kill non-Aryans. Saddam wasn't doing that.


gbull

Sadaam has never invaded a foriegn allied country, and hes certainly never commited genocide. Sarcasm


Remember what happened when he did do that? It's not like he was doing it again.

gbull

FYI, Im sure the CIA makes a point not to follow uncorroborated reports with no proof.


Unless they're pursuing a political agenda. The CIA has a lot more problems than it used to, but that's a whole 'nother debate.


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)

The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Stem Cell Research
Next Topic: Saddam's likes/dislikes and prison habits :D
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Dec 01 23:37:33 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00851 seconds