I didn't know I had to validate myself to you. Then again, I could always use the excuse that my debate partner didn't know his ass from a...oops. Never mind.

You can compare their records and such, but it's not going to get you anywhere becuase the situations were different.

However, Saddam v. Hitler does have some significant stance, albeit it is oft overused. For instance, both were genocidal dictators, although Hitler was actually trying to improve his nation, while Saddam clearly was so corrupt, he was robbing from his people.


I did. Apparently I'm missing something. Unless you really consider the following a question, considering we've been debating it :p

Removing a genocidal, anti-American dictator who had the potential to attack the United States.

What, maybe we should let another 9/11 happen again? Or according to you, wage unilateral war with N.Korea? But yet you want diplomacy. I can't answer a question if the interrogater doesn't have a firm stance himself.

w00t. What else am I supposed to say? Go into a lengthy description of how they are similar, and then have you change the topic? No thanks. If you're into banging something over and over again, I suggest you get to know your left hand, instead of trying to convince people of your point.


I think your policy of reform is incredibly ideological, and would, if enacted, result in higher crime and increased lawlessness.

It kills a human. Putting a generic name of "fetus" or "embryo" does not change it's genetics - it's a growing human baby. Possessed by the mother? So because I own a dog, I have the right to kill it?

Explain to me how you can rationalize a 46 chromosomed organism, that is living, and carrying out normal cell functions, and wholly sentient, is NOT a human being/person.

Major overhaul.


The choice is murder or life. I don't see many more arguments that are more black or white, yet it is morally reprehensible how people like yourself justify it.

Champion for economic failure, murder, and crime.

Regards,
Double-J