Replies

9/11 justified our taking out any enemy regime pre-emptively at any time, using any method.

Really? Even one that had nothing to do with it?

I guess that France is next for the Iraq treatment. They did not agree with us, they own WMD's (the real, nuclear kind) and we don't like them. You can see that in the renaming of French Fries. Who knows what they might do. Let us attack them pre-emptively. They meet the criteria.

“I guess that France is next for the Iraq treatment. They did not agree with us, they own WMD's (the real, nuclear kind) and we don't like them. You can see that in the renaming of French Fries. Who knows what they might do. Let us attack them pre-emptively. They meet the criteria. “

You are becoming hysterical. It's compromising your reason. It is a behavior unbecoming of a man. Your Libertarian position is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Left's.

I guess that France is next for the Iraq treatment. They did not agree with us, they own WMD's (the real, nuclear kind) and we don't like them. You can see that in the renaming of French Fries. Who knows what they might do. Let us attack them pre-emptively. They meet the criteria.

Now you are reachng for the obsurd. Certainly you can identify a difference between Iraq and France. Can you? I'm certain everyone else here on this thread can. Please, in honest debate, tell us if you can identify a difference between pre war Iraq and France that would tell you why we would not attack France.

You know, there are credible arguments that can be made why we should not have gone into Iraq. It seem, however, that those arguments do not lend themselves to an attack on Bush, thus you have no use for them. Please, tell me, is there some other explanation for the obsurdity of the statement you made above.

Did I misunderstand your comment?