Sorry not boxing but Bin Laden is dead.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters).

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

I am about to respond but you beat me to it. Good points.

[marbleheadmaui]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters).

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

I am about to respond but you beat me to it. Good points.

Don't let that stop you from jumping in!

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters).

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

I am about to respond but you beat me to it. Good points.

Don't let that stop you from jumping in!

Nah, I don't want miles to think that we ganged up on him, that we're "expanding the invitation for hatred".

[marbleheadmaui]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters).

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

I am about to respond but you beat me to it. Good points.

Don't let that stop you from jumping in!

Nah, I don't want miles to think that we ganged up on him, that we're "expanding the invitation for hatred".

LOL, fair enough. Among the many things in this world that baffle me is the notion that a nation should have a goal "to be liked." Like International Relations are some sort of popularity contest among High School cliques. Nations don't have long term friends, they have long term interests. The other is that it is somehow desireable to be approved of by thugs, dictators, tyrants, societies with stone-aged values or the faculty of Swarthmore College (known as "The Kremlin on the Krumm"). Here's one more. That people approve of the UN, an institution in whose General Assembly, the vote of a liberal democracy carries precisely the same weight as the vote of a murderous thug who arbitrarily kills and imprisons his own people. Like those two are morally equivalent and that equality represents some sort of admirable moral structure. Baffling.