Bush a Genius Says NY Times

old europe, Heck, 16,000 innocents killed for the sake of millions - just think about it. Small sacrifice, don't you think?

I'm just wondering if North Korea and Africa are targets for this sociopath. If we nuke them, they'll all be out of their misery. After all, North Korea and Iran nuclear weapons with the capability to give them to other terrorists to be delivered to the US. It's to protect the American People, damn it!

A preventive war is a war in which one state attacks another under the proclamation of preventive self-defense. Preventive war and preemptive war differ in the certainty of an attack. While a preemptive war concerns an imminent attack, preventive war takes place with no military provocation and is therefore a war of aggression, forbidden by international law. The justification often used by states engaging in preventive war is that another state may attack them in the future - thus an attempt to prevent it

old europe wrote:

I get to sociopathology from your disregard for societal standards and the rights of others.

Can you give me some examples? When and how did I show these traits?

old europe, Precisely; that's the reason why the US justification to attack Iraq was criminal. There was no provocation or threat; only made up intelligence fraud. It was not "prevention," and it certainly wasn't to bring democracy to the ME> that was an afterthought after no WMDs or al Qaida connection was found. Bush is a genius at changing his primary justification for something that changes into something unrecognizable at the end.

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

I get to sociopathology from your disregard for societal standards and the rights of others.

Can you give me some examples? When and how did I show these traits?

So you are afraid to answer? You know that your argument is false, but simply don't care? It takes more than posting volume to win a debate. You have accused me of something specific in the above quote. Give some evidence, or let it be clear that you cannot.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In my opinion, waging a war in which 16,000 innocent people die ... is worth it

Declaration of Independence = societal standard

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Brandon's disregard:

Brandon9000 wrote:

In my opinion, waging a war in which 16,000 innocent people die ... is worth it

that's why.

Good, now you are being specific. I do note however that you are censoring out the part of the sentence in which I say that it is worth it if it saves millions of lives. Isn't that a dishonest debating technique?

Good, now you are being specific. I do note however that you are censoring out the part of the sentence in which I say that it is worth it if it saves millions of lives. Isn't that a dishonest debating technique?

A preventive war is a war in which one state attacks another under the proclamation of preventive self-defense. Preventive war and preemptive war differ in the certainty of an attack. While a preemptive war concerns an imminent attack, preventive war takes place with no military provocation and is therefore a war of aggression, forbidden by international law. The justification often used by states engaging in preventive war is that another state may attack them in the future.

In my opinion, waging a war in which 16,000 innocent people die in order to prevent millions of innocent from dying later is worth it

Quote:

Good, now you are being specific. I do note however that you are censoring out the part of the sentence in which I say that it is worth it if it saves millions of lives. Isn't that a dishonest debating technique?

The part that you don't get is that it doesn't matter if you keep that line in or not.

The ends don't justify the means, Brandon. Ever.

If you can't understand that, then this argument about sociopathy is getting a little scary.

Cycloptichorn

Anyway, since innocent people die in every war, your argument appears to be that no war has ever been morally justifiable.

Is this, in fact, your belief? If it is not, then you cannot use the fact that I support this war knowing that some innocent lives will be lost as evidence of anything. What say you?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Good, now you are being specific. I do note however that you are censoring out the part of the sentence in which I say that it is worth it if it saves millions of lives. Isn't that a dishonest debating technique?

Nope.

But here we go:

International law = societal standard

Quote:

A preventive war is a war in which one state attacks another under the proclamation of preventive self-defense. Preventive war and preemptive war differ in the certainty of an attack. While a preemptive war concerns an imminent attack, preventive war takes place with no military provocation and is therefore a war of aggression, forbidden by international law. The justification often used by states engaging in preventive war is that another state may attack them in the future.

Brandon's disregard:

Brandon9000 wrote:

In my opinion, waging a war in which 16,000 innocent people die in order to prevent millions of innocent from dying later is worth it

Brandon9000 wrote:

Anyway, since innocent people die in every war, your argument appears to be that no war has ever been morally justifiable.

Nope.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Is this, in fact, your belief? If it is not, then you cannot use the fact that I support this war knowing that some innocent lives will be lost as evidence of anything. What say you?

I can. See above.

It's not just meaningful in war, it's meaningful in all aspects of life.

The means of an action must stand on their own merit, despite the ends of that action, or that action cannot be said to be categorically just.

Your question about whether war is morally justifiable or not is meaningless. You can always find reasons to justify your actions. But that doesn't make the actions themselves any different. This is the crucial part.

Cycloptichorn

Quote, "Why do you jump in with your jibes and accusations and then ignore every request that you back them up? Is this the behavior of an honest debater? Read back to my request that you provide evidence for what you said." *** They are backed up from 1) what this administration has admitted that there are no WMDs and no connection to al Qaida after one year in Iraq, 2) our preemptive attack on a sovereign nation was illegal under international laws, 3) our break with the Geneva Convention in more ways than one, and 4) an occupied country is not a sovereign country nor a democracy.

cicerone imposter wrote:

old europe, Heck, 16,000 innocents killed for the sake of millions - just think about it. Small sacrifice, don't you think?

This is the basic trade-off in every war, since everyone knows that innocent people always die in wars. Are you saying that the belief that a war can be morally justified is evidence of sociopathology?

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm just wondering if North Korea and Africa are targets for this sociopath. If we nuke them, they'll all be out of their misery. After all, North Korea and Iran nuclear weapons with the capability to give them to other terrorists to be delivered to the US. It's to protect the American People, damn it!

I have never advocated this on any post since I've been here. Why must you base your argument on lying about what your opponent has said?