0
   

The Invasion of Iraq was Justified - From Another Thread

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 04:49 pm
Even with my 8th grade education I find the logic above to be simply amazing. (sure glad I didn't continue my education)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 04:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Who said anything about "veto rights?" We have all the rights to defend ourselves from foreign attack. It does not give us the right to justify an aggressive attack on another sovereign nation on the basis of false intelligence.

Whether some part of the intelligence was wrong or not, even just the superficial aspects of the situation that are a part of the historical record were grounds enough for invasion.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 04:50 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Even with my 8th grade education I find the logic above to be simply amazing. (sure glad I didn't continue my education)

Sounds like the last refuge of a debater who cannot produce a reasoned defence of his viewpoint.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 04:51 pm
old europe wrote:
preemptive attack = self defense?

If that were true, poor USA!

If an evil madman is developing WMD, a pre-emptive attack is certainly self-defense. This is obvious just on the face of it.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 04:53 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
... even just the superficial aspects of the situation that are a part of the historical record were grounds enough for invasion.


I know one country that once used nukes. On civilians. Now it is developing new nukes. No international inspectors are allowed in.

I think we should attack.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 04:56 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
If an evil madman is developing WMD, a pre-emptive attack is certainly self-defense. This is obvious just on the face of it.


Brandon9000 wrote:
...even just the superficial aspects of the situation that are a part of the historical record were grounds enough for invasion.


I know many people who would characterize Bush as an evil madman. But, that's of course just superficial aspects of the situation that are a part of the historical record.

And, that's of course just THEIR opinion.
0 Replies
 
gravy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:02 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Who said anything about "veto rights?" We have all the rights to defend ourselves from foreign attack. It does not give us the right to justify an aggressive attack on another sovereign nation on the basis of false intelligence.

Whether some part of the intelligence was wrong or not, even just the superficial aspects of the situation that are a part of the historical record were grounds enough for invasion.


Danger! the V'GER entity is beginning to emit smoke...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:12 pm
Where there's smoke...
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 01:16 pm
parked behind a car today that burst into flames. I just parked elsewhere. But thinking about it I should have done something, at least shot the driver.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 01:25 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
parked behind a car today that burst into flames. I just parked elsewhere. But thinking about it I should have done something, at least shot the driver.


I didn't think Brits had guns.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 01:28 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
parked behind a car today that burst into flames. I just parked elsewhere. But thinking about it I should have done something, at least shot the driver.


I think that when a car has the potential to burst into flames the correct pre-emptive action is to set it on fire.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 01:34 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
parked behind a car today that burst into flames. I just parked elsewhere. But thinking about it I should have done something, at least shot the driver.


I think that when a car has the potential to burst into flames the correct pre-emptive action is to set it on fire.


??

I thought the right way was: stuff it with dynamite - make a show about how it has the potential to burst into flames - set it on fire!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 01:35 pm
You are right, old europe. Clearly I was thinking small.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 01:40 pm
Well it wasn't a problem in the end. There was space to park nearby. So all's well that ends well.

The car? Who cares. Heard some sirens later as I drove off.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 01:53 pm
You definitely have NO agenda to pacify and bring democracy to burning cars, Steve!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 01:56 pm
Its just a question of priorities Smile
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 02:40 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
parked behind a car today that burst into flames. I just parked elsewhere. But thinking about it I should have done something, at least shot the driver.


I think that when a car has the potential to burst into flames the correct pre-emptive action is to set it on fire.


Good one, Duck.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 03:23 pm
Yea, FreeDuck, I second McTag's one-liner post. Wink
Do we have any more "potential bursts of fire" that we can preemptively reduce to smitherines?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Invasion of Iraq was Justified - From Another Thread
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 5.97 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 06:04:27
▲ ▼