Your argument here is ridiculous, we extradite people all the time first off, there are also international courts.

So you think we shouldn't try to capture Osama since that would revenge?

Who is the terrorist sympathizer now.



No basis for this. Why not get a nuke from Iran or N.Korea? A place that actually has them or is in the process.

I was illustrating that as of 2002 he was giving into the UN and allowing inspections.

How old does your information have to be for it to become irrelevant? If I show you news articles from 20 years ago and say look right before we went in were given them money you would call that BS.

My evidence is from 2002 yours is from 1998......enough said.

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

Irrelevant even if true, because:

1) Lebanon doesnt have a fraction of the resources Saddam's Iraq had.

2) Lebanon is not a dictatorship.

International Courts are a fraud. They are the illusion of Justice. They have no basis for authority.

If you say so. I dont see how the fact that the US keeps foreign prisoners nullifies any of my arguments. The fact that we keep foreign prisoners does not mean we are less safe. Probably the opposite.

Um...where? They do not have more resources now than they did before, even if they have more people.

Please pay attention:

Not me. You'd already know that if you were paying attention.

Opinion noted. Lots of people disagree with you. Including me.

Who says they wont? That doesnt mean it was wrong to take away another resource. Their chances of obtaining a nuke are less now than they were before.

Saddam was more volitile than the other two. And we had already attempted years of diplomacy with Saddam that failed. That is why he took precedence.

It doesnt mean the other two were (and are) not a threat. It just means Saddam was more of a threat.

And likely would have continued...until we got too close to something he didnt want us to see. Which is exactly what happened many times before. In my previous post, I quoted the UN in order to illustrate this cycle.

Older than Saddam's rise to power.

Um...why would I do that? I have been consistently critical of supporting non-democracies, past and present. Whether we gave him money or not does not mean we were wrong to remove him.

So what? Your 2002 evidence does not make the 1998 evidence invisible.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Sadistic-Savior wrote:
Which country should we invade next?
Actually I can guess that one.
Which country is 10th on your list?


Ixtellor

P.S. You have given this same rant like 20 times. Talk about gay marriage or some insider stuff that involves your profession. Mix it up a little. Unless your a one-trick pony...

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

So some justice is not better than no justice?

It blantantly defeats your attempt to say we can't go after Osama since he is not American.

When asked why we went to Iraq instead of going to after Osama you said:


People are resources.

So attempting capture a criminal who killed 3,000 Americans is not worth the resources?


So you aren't a sympathizer but you also don't think resources should be used to capture the ones responsible?

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

Thats really up to Iran.

I wont know until the situation with Iran is resolved.

Yeah, you would think I wouldnt have to repeat myself so much.

This is an anonymous forum....you have no way of knowing what my real profession is. So you cant know that my stuff is really insider stuff.

And I talk about the important stuff more. Gay marriage is trivial compared to national defense.

You've been on here long enough that you should know that playing to my ego is futile.

Since they have no authority I dont consider it Justice.

I never said we could not go after Osama. Those are words you keep trying to put into my mouth for some weird reason. All I said was that he is an enemy, not a criminal. Which is true. The two words are not the same thing.

Criminals have a right to a trial. Enemies need only be destroyed. I am not interested in bringing Osama to trial. I dont need a show to make me feel better. I just want the threat removed.

If people were sufficient, China would now be the world Superpower instead of the US. Obviously they are insufficient.

If Al-Queada had a million more people they still would not be able to defeat us. But a single nuke could damage us greatly.

Not if the only goal is revenge. "How likely is it he will be able to attack us again?" And if so, "how much damage is he likely to do?" THOSE are the questions that should define how many resources we allocate to capturing him.

Not "How good will his capture make me feel?"...

Geez...are you retarded or something?

Yes, resources should be expended. Because is a terrorist leader. Not because he is your personal supervillain.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

So you think Osama is not a threat since we shouldn't use the resources to capture him?


You need more than one resource to be a superpower. You plainly said "they do not have more resources" and then say they have more people. Which resources do you refer to then?

What about 10 or 20 or 30 million more people?

Not to mention that the person in the best position to get a nuke and use it against I would imagine is Osama.......he has the money and the will.

He is likely to cause a lot of damage by spreading his rhetoric. Also, If he can get away with it why won't others also think they can get away with acts like this.

If you don't convict murderers there will be more murderers cause they don't get in trouble.

Nope, thanks for asking.


Earlier you said resources shouldn't be used to capture him? So which is it?

He is not my personal super villan call me crazy(or retarded again) but I like to see murderers go to jail or get the death sentence. No matter what country they are from or how much money/time it takes to capture them, especially when we are talking about a murderer who kills 3,000 people with ties to a terrorist organization and huge sums of money.


New Republican Slogan: As long as you aren't a direct threat after your crimes we won't try and capture you.

It comes down to this everyone else in America besides you apparently is appalled at the lack of resources that are being used to capture Osama.

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

Because he listenes to Dick Cheney instead of the American people

I once heard awhile back that Bush was looking for new advisors. . . . . .Funny how he missed millions of them

One could say that he's trying to it with as few troops as possible. A large force would probably help, but then it's look even more like an occupation. Perhaps he is genuinely trying to reform Iraq. Could people be too cynical to realize that?

First off, someone please explain to me what all the UN sanctions were meant to do.

I thought they were for something pertaining to him breaking agreements made after the Gulf War and that they weren't just a reques; weren't there suppose to be consequences? Some people could argue that the UN really didn't have any backup for if Saddam continued to disobey them; that they are spineless; that they are corrupt; that in the end, what is best for their buisness is still priority. I've met few people that actually want to talk about the UN. The one who I have agrees that they are corrupt and need reform, but he doesn't want to do anything untill they are. In short, he thinks we shouldn't move untill the whole world's behind us.

I always thought that the UN and stuff was formed out of the agreement that we would look after each other and keep oneanother in check; like an obligation. It wouldn't look like the rest of the UN is fulfilling its obligation. Maybe that nullifies our own; I don't think it does. Some joke that the US wants to play Superman. Well one of the things I thought that made Superman... super (for lack of better words) was that when others couldn't or wouldn't do anything, he'd be there to set them straight. His powers are irrelevent. It's his will to do all that he could to save as many as he could. I'm not saying that we're the world's Superman, but sometimes it takes a nation like that who is willing to step forward and do the work. I know we've done some screwy things and our ultimate goal doesn't justify them, but if ever one nation fit the image of one that could inspire and act as a compass for the rest of the world to follow, the US would seem the best candidate. It has the ability. It's track record is still fairly good. Some of the things we started may have been misguided but still had good intentions. Maybe people are jealous. Maybe they're cynical. Maybe they're just pessimistic. But there are people won't do anything and there are people who will. Most won't but that shouldn't stop people who would. You don't have to be searching for greatness to find it. Most often it's achieved simply by doing what's right and though it sounds cliche, if we don't do anything (US, the world, not just America), nothing will change.

Another thought: If people would agree that the UN is corrupt, inefficient, and overall useless, why should we listen to it untill it is reformed? If it's corrupt then it's logic is most certainly flawed.