FYI, third video down.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p1477826
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p1477826
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Again, I agree with Kucinich in his stance against bombing innocent civilians, but I don't believe Osama needs to stand trial. He needs to be apprehended and interrogated if possible, and if not, simply killed without killing innocent people in the process.
I still have to admire Kucinich for being the only Democrat against this move at the debate. He's like the Ron Paul of the Democrats.
If they weren't polar opposites in economic policy, I'd say Kucinich and Paul would make an awesome ticket for president/VP.
I still have to admire Kucinich for being the only Democrat against this move at the debate. He's like the Ron Paul of the Democrats.
If they weren't polar opposites in economic policy, I'd say Kucinich and Paul would make an awesome ticket for president/VP.
I've been thinking about that question, and partially I agree with Kucinich. There is a profound difference in killing Osama with a missile, with little closure or physical evidence besides the US military's word and maybe a picture of a gored body that hes actually dead, and arresting him, charging him in an international court of law, on every TV screen in the world, and ultimately convicting him for the thousands of deaths hes caused. It's a matter of closure. We all know Hitler murdered millions of Jews, but he was never formally convicted for it.
My answer would be "Do EVERYTHING we can physically do to capture him alive, but if this is without a doubt the last chance we'll ever get (theres a good chance it wouldn't, assuming we knew EXACTLY where he was), then order the air strike".
My answer would be "Do EVERYTHING we can physically do to capture him alive, but if this is without a doubt the last chance we'll ever get (theres a good chance it wouldn't, assuming we knew EXACTLY where he was), then order the air strike".
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-06-05 22:17:43)