Bush plea for cash to rebuild Iraq raises $600

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My strawman versus your strawman:
How many civilians did Saddam Hussein kill?

Question is slightly incomplete, should be posed like that:
"How many US civilians did SH kill?"

Just in order to keep balance in fairness ...

Oh, I see. So it doesn't matter if he kills a couple hundred thousand of his own citizens. No one has the right to stop him from doing so. Got it!

Well, we better get started on EVERY other horrible regime in the world then. Because we are the police.

Please don't try to act like it was just about saving the people in Iraq. Like we were doing it out of the goodness of our hearts. That was secondary to our search for WMD's and no spin is going to change that

[shropshire 0]

Quote

(1)Oh, I see. So it doesn't matter if he kills a couple hundred thousand of his own citizens. (2) No one has the right to stop him from doing so. (3)Got it!

(1) I still cannt see how killing more innocents in the same country addresses the balance.

If there is a killer on your street, you wouldn't expect the cops to bomb the whole street in an attempt to nail him, would you?


(2) NO ONE has the right to kill, let alone kill innocent men, women and kids. Stoping him doing something by doing the same thing is just plain daft (or murder!)


(3) Sorry, but it seems to me that you dont Got it.


.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[busaunit 0]

ok saddam did kill a lot of people, but i think that number has been over taken by BUSH.if its all about numbers.


Also saddam bought the weapons he used to kill all those people from the same people that that are now have stoped him.

So its ok to sell a country weapons as long as they do use them.

once again when was the last time you bought something and didnt use it.


and the list of weapons that was sold too them does include wma

maybe this is y bush knows he has them,because no one else could find them

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

(2) NO ONE has the right to kill, let alone kill innocent men, women and kids. Stoping him doing something by doing the same thing is just plain daft (or murder!)

Drifting a bit, but, "NO ONE has the right to kill"? No one? Ever?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[shropshire 0]

IMHO - Correct - no one has the right to TAKE another's life .... Ever.

Defence is a different matter, TAKING implies preemptive action.

(P.S in my case that's not a religious thing, it's a respect thing)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Jimbo 0]

If I kill someone in self-defense why is that not taking a life?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[shropshire 0]

The difference? Semantics, I supose. But in my definition TAKING equates to some thing along the lines of stealing something that does not belong to you. See the problem is, we only get one life, so it's theft is really wasteful and it's loss can not be compensated for EVER ... sorry that I cannt explain my self too well but, it's kind of cold blooded, or premeditated (Like murder or capital punishment - oh that's gonna cause a riot!).

As you ask... help me out, what do you think?

Regards,

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome