Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

vicious-vegan · Jun 4, 2007, 03:14 pm

Yesterday I was watching the democratic debate and Kucinich was asked a question. He was asked, "if you knew where Osama Bin Laden (Spelling?) was and had twenty minutes to get to him, would you attack knowing that innocent people will be killed while getting to him?"
Kucinich was the only one that said no. He said that Osama needs a fair trail.

What would you have said? Do you think that Kucinich is morally right to have said no because it would kill others?

Duke1985 · Jun 4, 2007, 03:22 pm

Actually thats not a bad answer.
If we caught bin laden I imagine the whole thing would go to trial just like we did with Saddam. I think taking Bin Laden alive would be the preferable choice wouldn't it.
Now there are questions that one could ask like, "how many innocent deaths can we have and call it an acceptable amount of collateral damage"

Osborn F Enready · Jun 4, 2007, 09:46 pm

I agreed 100% with Kucinich, EXCEPT, I support the use of "assasination" if there is legitimate need.

Osama, if the facts are correct, needs assasinated, and bombs, missiles and large explosions are not tools of a surgical assasination.

He should be targeted from 9 or 10 football fields away, and laid down with a well placed .50 caliber round by U.S. Spec Ops Snipers, no need for innocents to die.

Jun 4, 2007, 03:14 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
vicious-vegan Síochán leat Location: Spokane, Washington Posts: 79	What Kucinich said Yesterday I was watching the democratic debate and Kucinich was asked a question. He was asked, "if you knew where Osama Bin Laden (Spelling?) was and had twenty minutes to get to him, would you attack knowing that innocent people will be killed while getting to him?" Kucinich was the only one that said no. He said that Osama needs a fair trail. What would you have said? Do you think that Kucinich is morally right to have said no because it would kill others? "Always stand for what is right, even if you're standing alone."

Jun 4, 2007, 03:22 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Duke1985 The Duke Location: Michigan Posts: 308	Actually thats not a bad answer. If we caught bin laden I imagine the whole thing would go to trial just like we did with Saddam. I think taking Bin Laden alive would be the preferable choice wouldn't it. Now there are questions that one could ask like, "how many innocent deaths can we have and call it an acceptable amount of collateral damage" He's bad news man, helter skelter down the drain man.

Jun 4, 2007, 09:46 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	I agreed 100% with Kucinich, EXCEPT, I support the use of "assasination" if there is legitimate need. Osama, if the facts are correct, needs assasinated, and bombs, missiles and large explosions are not tools of a surgical assasination. He should be targeted from 9 or 10 football fields away, and laid down with a well placed .50 caliber round by U.S. Spec Ops Snipers, no need for innocents to die. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready