shakran

Um, no. . . where'd you get that from? The cold war was at its peak in the 80's. My example was in the 80's. You used something from the 60's and 70's to refute it. Didn't make sense.





Yes, absolutely. The "gee he MIGHT be dangerous so let's off him" approach is not only immoral, it's stupid.

You MIGHT be dangerous to me. You have the capability of killing me IF you figure out where I live and IF you get a gun and IF you're a good enough shot and IF you decide you want me dead. IF all those if's come together, you could conceivably kill me. By your logic, I now need to hunt you down and kill you first.




You're kidding yourself if you think he does, after he says he's not concerned about him. You're kidding yourself if you think he does after he takes the troops looking for them and sticks them in Iraq.


That's a great question and one that I can't figure out. But let's look at history. We kept voting Reagan back in office even though he drove up the worst (at the time - Bush Jr. has now eclipsed his record) debt ever, called Russia an evil empire on a national broadcast (by your logic, Russia should have destroyed us for that), and was actively involved in Iran-Contra. And you earlier claimed that Sen. Byrd was horrible because of his "n-word" comments -- - why do we keep electing HIM? You're not even being consistant with your inconsistancies here





And with him toppled, Iraq is now free and open for all sorts of other terrorists to set up camp there, and work against the US. That's a BAD thing and came DIRECTLY from invading Iraq.



You make it sound like they're already out of suicide bombers. Look you don't have to have a stockpile of anything as long as the supply line keeps turning it out. They might not have 50,000 people in a warehouse somewhere waiting to bomb people, but every day they get new volunteers and every day they send volunteers out to bomb people. Whether you have 'em stockpiled or they keep volunteering each day, you still have a big supply.





They ARE going to Iraq, so your supposition is irrelevant. And remember, they werent' this active before the invasion. They weren't coming over here every day and blowing something up. Any danger of that has been created by our invading Iraq.




That's right. Or would you have us invade Ireland to get rid of their terrorists too?

Terrorists are BAD, but they're not necessarilly BAD to US. The people setting off car bombs in Ireland couldn't care less about attacking the USA. They're terrorists, but they don't threaten us. We need to concentrate on what actually threatens us, and Saddam was very low on that list compared to other threats.

Look again at OBL - He attacked the WTC twice, the pentagon once, and was going after other targets but his plane crashed. That's pretty solid evidence that he's not only BAD, but he's BAD toward US. He's logically the guy we want to get, not some dink in the desert who can't blink without us knowing about it.


Their official STATED state policy is to combat terrorism. But it's hard to combat it when you're funding it. You seem to be saying "as long as they SAY they don't like terrorrists, it doesnt' matter what they DO, so we don't need to invade them."

Your arguments seem to be mainly about words. If someone says bad things about us, we kill them. If someone does bad things to us, we let them escape into the desert. Makes no sense whatsoever.


Lots of people don't like America. Far fewer of those people actually plan on doing anything about it. You do not kill people because they voiced an opinion. And again, OBL has said "death to america" for years, and he's actually acted upon it. You cannot justify going after anyone until you acknowledge that OBL needs to be our primary target, because all of the arguments you are using to go after people, OBL fits, and does so to a greater extreme than any of the people you want to go after. He not only chants death to America, he ACTS on it, and has done so many times.