Osama & Friends get Free Pass to Kill

[Dante]

A lot of them did. Did that help them?

right it is fueled from a religious belief or religious cause or a political agenda....

THAT IS ALL INDIRECT .... meaning BUSH HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING DIRECT TO THEM... BUSH did NOT slap Osama's mama across the face .... he simply is running a country that has a culture that Osama considers "infidel"

There is nothing BUSH can do to help that... except force everyone in USA to become a muslim....

[GUNWOUNDS]

A lot of them did. Did that help them?

He and those before him have worked for

[Dante]

And both parties should know better. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[GUNWOUNDS]

And both parties should know better. Two wrongs do not make a right.

not that again.....

obviously our action isnt a "wrong" ... trying to protect and preserve innocent human life by eliminating all threats to it.. is not "wrong"

[Dante]

Preserving life by invading and taking life? Yeeeaaaahh. Right.

[emprworm]

Preserving life by invading and taking life? Yeeeaaaahh. Right.

the IRAQI's would declare otherwise.  Again, dustscout, why are you imposing your amoral views on Iraqis.  Whos more of an authority to determine whether actions taken against a country are right or wrong? 

You?  Or THEM?

thought so.

for one who claims to be amoral, you sure like shoving your morality down people's throat preacher style.

IRAQIS APPROVE of the action. 

Quit speaking for them.

[Dante]

Take your own advice.

[emprworm]

Ok.  I'll let the Iraqi's speak for themselves.

Iraqis generally appear to want occupation forces to stay at least until security is restored and an Iraqi government is in place. Only 15 percent say they should leave now.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040316/wl_nm/iraq_poll_dc_2

checkmate.

again.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ok.

[Dante]

Check your own statistics.

While half of those questioned believe the invasion was the right thing to do, compared with 39 percent who said it was wrong, more than four in 10 said they had no confidence whatsoever in U.S. and British occupation troops, and 51 percent oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Check your own statistics.

While half of those questioned believe the invasion was the right thing to do, compared with 39 percent who said it was wrong, more than four in 10 said they had no confidence whatsoever in U.S. and British occupation troops, and 51 percent oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.

That being said, Iraqis generally appear to want occupation forces to stay at least until security is restored and an Iraqi government is in place. Only 15 percent say they should leave now.

keep it in context....

[Dante]

So they want them to stay for now. They're looking our for their own interests by saying that because they know that however much they may like or dislike it they currently need the help.

[GUNWOUNDS]

So they want them to stay for now. They're looking our for their own interests by saying that because they know that however much they may like or dislike it they currently need the help.

exactly........ 51 percent dont like them being there.. but only 15 percent want them to leave IMMEDIATELY

[Dante]

Only an idiot refuses the only help they've got.

[emprworm]

and because they WANT our help, it IS our business to be there.

for you to say we have no business there, is to make a moral argument.  IRAQI's want us there.  Who made you GOD to say their society has no right to ask us for help?

[Dante]

God doesn't exist. And I didn't say they should ask us for help. I didn't say we shouldn't give it to them. I said that we were incorrect (logically, not morally) to depose Saddam the way we did. There are far better ways of going about it. Ways that would be cheaper for example.

And not all of them wanted our help. Even if they did, it was Saddam's rule, not ours.

[GUNWOUNDS]

empworm.... its pointless to argue because so long as you are defending a debate from the side of the freedom and rights of an opressed people .... versus someone trying to say otherwise... your always gonna punch gaping holes in their arguements and the only thing they can do is hide behind a shield of Amorality or indifference.

[emprworm]

God doesn't exist. And I didn't say they should ask us for help. I didn't say we shouldn't give it to them. I said that we were incorrect (logically, not morally) to depose Saddam the way we did. There are far better ways of going about it. Ways that would be cheaper for example.

And not all of them wanted our help. Even if they did, it was Saddam's rule, not ours.

US congress approved of us to go in there.  We did it legally.  What 'law' are you appealing to when you say it was 'saddams rule?'  the majority of Iraqi's said it was NOT saddams rule.  Your argument is horribly unsupported.

[Dante]

You claim Saddam was a dictator. To be a dictator one must dictate something. Thus he dictated Iraq, thus he ruled Iraq. Thus it was his rule that Iraq was under. And his laws stated that it was illegal to attack him etc etc. So did the UN. So did many other laws. Including unimportant moral ones but also:

Saddam's country. His business.

[emprworm]

empworm.... its pointless to argue because so long as you are defending a debate from the side of the freedom and rights of an opressed people .... versus someone trying to say otherwise... your always gonna punch gaping holes in their arguements and the only thing they can do is hide behind a shield of Amorality or indifference.

i know, but its fun exposing his holes.

[Dante]

Stop trying to act superior and justify your own holes.

[VigilVirus]

His whole arguments is built on holes. Too many to justify.

[emprworm]

You claim Saddam was a dictator. To be a dictator one must dictate something. Thus he dictated Iraq, thus he ruled Iraq. Thus it was his rule that Iraq was under. And his laws stated that it was illegal to attack him etc etc. So did the UN. So did many other laws. Including unimportant moral ones but also:

Saddam's country. His business.

since when does one human have credence to physically own another human?

Saddam's Country?  Saddam's Human beings?

Huh?  The United STates has determined with its laws that people do not have the right to own other people.  Who are you to trump the US laws?

Who are you to say that one human being is superior to another? Saddam's power was not recognized by the US.  The IRaqi people were, and the majority people were with the U.S.  You recognize Saddam's power as legitimate.  Under what basis?

Was it legitimate for the US to invade Germany during WWII? 

keep in mind we were not attacked by Germany.  Didn't the Jews belong to Hitler?  Didn't Hitler have a legal right to kill them?

"Hitler's country. His business."  right?

prediction:  you will ignore this point

[Egeides]

so you blame Marx for the deaths committed under Stalin?

Marx didn't knew what it would give while I think Bush knew pretty well, but it was an excellent strategic position to take. Now, a bunch of corporations are invading the place. And he knows that to stay right now like he does, with coporate support and supporting big corporations, it is to add oil in the flames.

[Wolf]

Many people have asked "what do the Iraqis think?"

Well, here it is;

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

An Iraqi weblog, made by Iraqis freely now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. This would not have been possible under Saddam's regime, I think. Enjoy, everyone.

Furthermore, we cannot say that Iraq was "not our business" and still claim to have the moral high ground. Because, to do nothing in Iraq would be to allow human rights abuses to continue unchecked. Therefore, we cannot say we are humanitarian and not remove Saddam from power. At the same time, war might be considered an immoral action. In which case, we cannot look to morality to judge our decisions, but practicality. What is worth more to? Looking good in the eyes of allies? Or freeing a nation's people? Which world would you prefer, postwar or prewar? Well, if you are an Iraqi, you would prefer the postwar. And they are the only ones who should be able to justify the war.