DEBATE

[ob]

Re: DEBATE

Of OUR failure to evolve.It would be in your best interest to occasionally switch from CNN and the Daily Show as your source of information as to the instability in the region.

 

[Knoxes]

Re: DEBATE

We still resort to insults, disrespect and placing blame - a definitive testament to the resistance to civilization.

 

[ob]

Re: DEBATE

You'll need to be more specific about the insults and the disrespectful blame placing that has you so concerned.Provide some examples.

 

[mattttt25]

Re: DEBATE

what's this all have to do with my presidency?<br /><br />back to my agenda- i see parking 5 carrier battle groups around iraq, and 1 off the coast of korea. when sadam blows us off again, we execute. our arsenal will give us about 400 aircraft dropping bombs, and about 1300 cruise missiles being launched. that's just the navy fellas, we can let the air force, army, and marines join in if they want. when the dust settles, our point will be made, and the world will be safer. i think the koreans will want to get that 6th carrier off their coast and sign any pact we hand them. will we still have terrorism? yes. but doing nothing, wasting inspectors time, trying to "talk it over" is not taking care of the problem either.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: DEBATE

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: DEBATE

Hey matt, if you get the nomination, I want to be your running mate.<br />I have great plans for this country but have no outlet to let them out. <br />I know what Sadam needs but I can't post it here though. <br />Seriously though, back to the debate for we are starting to stray just a little here.

 

[SCO]

Re: DEBATE

Knoxes, the 60's reference was a little provocative, but that's what I perceived from your post. We are both in agreement about lives. Wasn't 911 enough of a demonstration to show that we have to go after those that would do us harm? The longer we sit on our hands the greater the casualties will be. Then again, maybe not. Maybe delay would be the best course. Maybe we get the same result no matter what we do. Anything we do or don't do is a choice that will either cost more or save more lives. You cannot logically conclude that putting off war will save lives without acknowledging it may in fact cost more lives.

 

[Knoxes]

Re: DEBATE

OB - I have neither the time or inclination... I'm just disappointed.

 

[Knoxes]

Re: DEBATE

SCO - I think the proper actions are those taken to prevent the loss of lives. By saying "go after them", I agree, but we remove their opportunity to do harm. I think peace - worldwide - is inevitable, but we can either participate in that evolution or attempt to impede it. It's also illogical to conclude that an immediate expense of lives will prevent a future loss. <br /><br />Oh, and I wasn't there during the 60's

 

[SCO]

Re: DEBATE

Knoxes, I hope we progress to a "civilized" state, but to date, is hasn't happened. Europe would be fighting, but we Americans have kept the peace for them since WWII. We are the only shot this world has of getting to that civilized state in the near term because, and this is where I differ profoundly from Plywoody, we are not trying to take over the world, but want a peaceful world for all. We need to keep our genes in the pool.

 

[SCO]

Re: DEBATE

Knoxes, how is it illogical that an immediate expense could prevent future loss? An immediate expense would foil their plans, deny them time to develop capability and associations, and deny them the weapons themselves, and possibly prevent them from killing thousands , maybe hundreds of thousands of us.

 

[ob]

Re: DEBATE

Knoxes , If you don't have the time or inclination to explain your accusations of our administrations alleged insults or disrespectful blame placing then I would refrain from such comments that don't hold water without specific examples.It's called "propaganda."

 

[NOSLEEP]

Re: DEBATE

Peace is possible. and perhaps for the long<br />term it is just around the corner, though yet<br />out of site. If it is to come it will most<br />assuredly be brought about by the United States<br />Of America.

 

[Knoxes]

Re: DEBATE

SCO - "It is illogical to conclude that the .... it's the conclusion that's illogical. Will war prevent further loss? Possibly. That justification was once employed for the use of a WMD - the only use of a WMD this world has known. What is conclusive is that war will cost lives. Until we begin to elevate human life to the most valuable asset we know, we will continue to consider and embrace war as a possibility.

 

[SCO]

Re: DEBATE

hello Knoxes,<br />You are popular . I'm pointing out that to leave the BofB with his weapons leaves us at risk of wmd attacks of horrifying proportion. If they are under his control, they can be used against us. I suspect the only way that we can effectively bottle him and those weapons up is to place troops on all his borders, otherwise we have to take the weapons by force because he is not cooperative. We already know he has them so there is no point to continue with inspections. It comes down to letting him have them or not. Your choice is to let him have them and that is a choice which could result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of us. So much for preserving life.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: DEBATE

I'm looking ebb, I'm looking<br />

<br />I'm getting ready to throw one, when I find out after looking, that in fact a foul will have to be called here.<br />

 

[SCO]

Re: DEBATE

Knoxes, our answers are a little out of phase. The BofB has used WMD before. We used the nukes. We didn't start the war w Japan. We had seen how they fought. They were all but defeated, but would not give up. They were going to make us invade. The nukes did save lives. We are the good guys that saved the world. Japan and Germany have their countries today. Had they won it would be a different story and we would not be speaking English.

 

[SCO]

Re: DEBATE

Knoxes , a parting thought. I'm going to quote you here, no disrespect intended(that style usually puts me off).<br /><br />"Until we begin to elevate human life to the most valuable asset we know, we will continue to consider and embrace war as a possibility. "<br /><br />I couldn't agree more. Problem is our enemies don't embrace this philosophy. Those scamps still abide by their middle ages viewpoints.<br /><br />I'm worn out here people. To copy 12'er, gotta..turn...off ...computer***CLICK_________________________________________________

 

[Knoxes]

Re: DEBATE

Adieu, SCO. It's been a pleasure.<br /><br />With respect,<br /><br />K

 

[crab bait]

Re: DEBATE

but anyway,,i think HILLARY would make a good president again..!!