Date: 4/6/2004 4:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 62585
I personally would never have an abortion, but i suppose i am pro-choice. I feel that someone who is denied an abortion because its against the law, may take matters into their own hands and try to do it themselves or have someone on the street do it. which could result in both of their deaths. I also believe that in the case of rape or severe birth defects it should be allowed. As far as the war. I do not support this war. I do not support any war unless there is an extremely justified cause. such as when we took out hitler. that was something that needed to be done. but as far as hunting for weapons that may or may not be there, its hard to judge, because we as civillians will NEVER know the whole story. ~Charmed One~  |
Date: 4/6/2004 4:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 62618
(Here we go.) OK, I'll tell you how I feel about this issue. I am a liberal. I am pro-choice. I do not support President Bush or the war in Iraq. Being pro-choice does not make me pro-abortion. Personally, unless I were in danger(and maybe not even then) I would not even consider it. But as for Susie down the street? It's none of my business what she wants to do. Don't make the mistake of assuming all pro-choice people advocate abortion. I advocate choice.
As for President Bush and his war, I'm opposed to the amount of money, time and resources that are being expended for an agenda of power. Twelve families lost someone today. If the energy Bush put into the war on terror had been dumped into education and aid for the citizens of this country, we would be well on the way to evolving as humans and those 12 people would still be alive.
I really appreciate the fact that you are asking questions and trying to learn how others think. Your classmate is probably only repeating things he has heard his parents say. He won't know how he really feels about these kinds of issues for a while. Some people never learn to form their own opinions about things and just accept what others say.  |
Date: 4/6/2004 5:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Sounds like a great teacher, probably a strong supporter of the teachers union, in favor of tenure and not about to allow an opposing point of view. On the flip side war and abortion are two completely different issues, no matter how you slice it abortion is simply retroactive birth control and 985 of abortion would be eliminated merely by the use of personal responsibility and forethought. War on the other hand is the product of nations opposed to one another and their ideals or a threat to a notions or the worlds stability. Iraq was a threat to world/ middle east stability and also (as proven) a hotbed of anti U.S. activity and had a proven track record of agression against it's neighbors and it's own people. In a nutshell and all buzz words aside that is why we are there. I do not consider the people killing our soldiers and civilians and mutilating their bodies "innocent". You say you're nuetral but you're already buying the liberal line. May I ask a question, "Where would you be without the wars that have been fought on your behalf, even before you were born?"  |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 5:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Typo-Should read 98% |
|
Date: 4/6/2004 5:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 62618
Twelve families lost someone today. |
Date: 4/6/2004 6:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
Twelve babys + lost their lives today also.  |
Date: 4/6/2004 10:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 62618
And we are just putting more hostility and bad karma in the world. Stick to your guns. I respect it. Seeya.
|
Date: 4/6/2004 10:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
For me, the difference between abortion and this war is clear. Abortion is the deliberate and largely unjust choice to terminate another innocent human being. This war seeks not to destroy innocent lives, but rather, those that have killed, and would kill, us. Many of the innocent lives lost in Iraq have been the direct result of fellow Iraqis trying to test the resolve of America, not because of the US's plans. This is a just war; if it were not being waged on foreign soil, we would be battling the terrorists here. Finally, if we are truly concerned about the tragic loss of innocent life, we should address the matter of the 1,000 people that have died in the past 24 hours because of cigarettes, or the 500 that have died because alcohol was mixed with driving. That some are instead largely concerned with the 600 valiant men and women that have given their lives in the past year may indicate misplaced priorities.  |
Date: 4/6/2004 11:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 15319
". This is a just war; if it were not being waged on foreign soil, we would be battling the terrorists here." <~~ Proof please?  |
Date: 4/7/2004 12:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
A hotbed of anti-US activity? Or is it anti-occupation activity BCAR? LAst I checked, I didn't see many American's beign killed by Iraqis until, well, Americans invaded Iraq. And as far as violence against their own people? That is a point that has been brought up before. IN fact, in the rush to war the administration REPEATEDLY told us of the horrors of the chemical weapons testin by Sadam on his own people, but it was never mentioned WHERE they obtained these horrible WMD's that are simply UNTHINKABLE to actually use on human beings. Hmmm... I wonder why? "I do not consider the people killing our soldiers and civilians and mutilating their bodies "innocent" Well Bcar, what do you call the small children, women, and non-combatant men that have been killed or mutilated by us? "Where would you be without the wars that have been fought on your behalf, even before you were born?" Well, exactly how many of those wars for our freedom did we fight in countries that we invaded without provocation? But alas, this is not the topic at hand, but who knows, maybe we can discuss this in an appropriate debate in the very near future.  |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 1:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
And Alfrowl, what part of these well placed priorities of yours make the THOUSAND of non-combative civilians that have been killed in this war that we are so proud of? People complain about political correctness, and the sanitising of the english language to make it soft and cushy for us, but the millitary has been doing it for years. Saying colateral damage is much nicer than saying "blown up innocent people". Heck, isn't it blowing up innocent people who didn't deserve to be blown up because of some self righteous foreigners what we were all so mad about in the first place? Hey, we have more than doulbled that death toll in Iraq. Good for us. 'Cause who cares who we kill over there, right. All those innocent people we killed, we saved from a tyrant, right? Who knows what he would have done to them?! We just put them out of their missery. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 1:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
"Finally, if we are truly concerned about the tragic loss of innocent life, we should address the matter of the 1,000 people that have died in the past 24 hours because of cigarettes" Last time I checked, I didnt have a gun to my head forcing me to light up another one. |
Date: 4/7/2004 5:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 59163
so you believe that the war in iraq was about president bush wanting to kill innocent people? boy you have a lot to learn. and you're not going to learn it from some democrat brainwashing  |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 5:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Ahh Phydeux, Text book answer. "Without provocation" I would say there was ample provocation. And Saddam could have avoided all of this had he complied with resolutions, or stepped down, or maybe not been a bloody torturer and dictator in the first place. His murders and "in house" genocide far out weighs any colateral civilian deaths that have occured as a result of U.S. combat action. Again the Iraqi choice to fight this war in populated areas points back at their own disregard for the people. As for "Iraqi occupation" no doubt there is nationalist sentiment in Iraq, but there is also insurgents from outside Iraq as well as a well orchestrated movement of Bath party loyalists. I'll admit that no proof of Iraq currently having WMD has been found, then again with an 18 month notice of US intentions the smart money would be on moving them, but who knows. What is known is that Iraq Did posses and Had used these weapons, regardless of propaganda that says otherwise. Where they obtained them? Who knows your implication of course is that they obtained them from the U.S., could be, wouldn't be the first time we backed a loser during the cold war anti communist days. But I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 6:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
But in a nut shell Phydeux, You premise is that it would be preferable for Saddam and his regime to continue to suppress their people and to continue to murder entire villages and torture and kill disidents. As long as it's not the big bad imperial United States Government that you despise killing people by accuident. Or should I re-phrase that as the Big Bad Imperial "republican administration" United States Government. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 6:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 59163
the clinton administration would have sent ice cream cones *hugglies* |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 9:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
"Text Book" huh? Then where is your answer. You say there were so many instances of provocation, what were they? Where was the attack on the United States, where was the proven threat to our national security? And the UN resolutions? Those were ours alone to attack over, or was it the UN's job? It is as if a criminal were caught, and in the middle of trial, a mod killed him. He broke a United States law. The Mob were members of the United States, so I suppose they had the right to inforce those laws however they see fit, right? And you would not have us appologize for him using weapons that the administration itself has deemed terrifying, horrible weapons, and that their use was so unthinkable, that ALONE could give us reason to invade, WHEN WE GAVE IT TO HIM?! Sure, the guy that grows th coca plants isnt responsible for what the drug dealer does with them. And it is worth the colateral damage? Who are you to decide. You are not a citizen of that country, your life was not threatened, your children were not maimed and dissfigured. Now, you never answered me. You asked a question, and I responded, if you are so right, I deserve an answer. Now how many of those wars did not involve a direct provocation that gave us our freedom? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 9:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
And why does everyone refer to the Clinton administration all the time? What does he have to do with it? Or does it just make Bush look better to put down another administration. If he is such a great president, he should be able to stand alone, but everyone has to insult a past president to make him look good. How odd. |
Date: 4/7/2004 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 29387
Christians complain about getting the brunt of disagreement on this site?!? Jeese, try being a liberal. Anyways, it seems illogical to compare war and abortion, but I definitely see the point your making. In fact, both of these activities are made by choice. Bush did not have to go to war. A woman doesn't have to get an abortion. But, because of the rights we've given to that woman (Constitutional, free will), and that man (Presidential rights, Commander in Chief, military), we have to live with, and respect, what decisions they make, even if we don't agree with them.  |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 10:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
Did I ever say that I would find it more acceptable to leave Sadam in power? No, what I questioned was the process by which this happened. There are dictators all over the world still in power. People like you and the Bush campaighn CONTINUEOUSLY say things like that. I hear all the time how if so-and-so were president Sadam would still be in Power. This is a missleading peice of propoganda once you realise that Bush is in power, and so is (insert name of random dictator here). |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 10:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
Hey we even consider some of these countries that abuse their citizens our allies. So dont give me that self righteous garbage. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 10:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Answering questions with a question. That's your schtick Phydeux. Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, the escalation in Somalia, the bombing of the Czech republic, all unprovoked wars in your book, all perpetrated by democratic administrations. World WarI not direct provocation by your definition. In fact only the Civil War and WWII actually involved direct attacks on Americans on American soil. Of course there is that pesky incident on 9-11-01 but Saddam wasn't video taped buckling in the terrorists in their seats so that connection doesn't hold water. The bottom line is that instability, terror, apathy, and disent for no more than polital gain here at home, threaten our freedom. As stated above the precedent for taking military action without direct provocation is well established. From what I see the difference is what party the administration currently represents. As for Clinton, I only point out that he authorized the largest bombing campaign since WWII in populated areas of the Balkans and I don't recall any great out cry from the liberal front. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 10:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Calm down, I don't see anyone here defending dictators or abusive regimes anywhere. You're being disagreed with on several points here. No More - No Less. We Are entitled to disagree are we not? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 10:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Also before I get labeled a facist, I said above, "dissent for no more than political gain". Dissent on issues and policy is the life blood of a democracy. Dissent for headlines and political manipulation is damaging, no matter who is doing it. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 11:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
None of those conflics involved a direct threat to our freedom and are not exactly what would be called proud monets in history. You actually invoke Vietnam as a war that was faught for our freedom? Come on. Nearly all of those conflicts are ones we abandoned before a firm resolution was reached. And what does it matter what administration perpetrated it? You keep acting as if I was supporting a democratice administration here, when I have yet to declare my support for any of them. But that is just like YOU huh BCAR? Call somone a liberal, and point out the shortcomings of past democratic administrations. Lable mw what you like, it doesn't mean you know who I am, and it gives you nothing. And when did I say not to dissagree with me? You made a reference to if it would be better for Sadam to remain in power, actaully you blindly labled me a Sadam supporter, because that is the recent tactic. All I did was respond to said tactic. Nothing more, nothing less. and if "dissent for no more than political gain" is a threat to our freedom, what is killing thousands of people for political gain a threat to? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 11:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 62483
Government controls war whether we agree or not, thank god they don't control what we do with our own bodies. A baby inside of a woman's stomach is a growth that's growing off of her. She has the right to remove it. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 11:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Am I reading someone elses comments or my own? Where did I say I Vietnam was fought for our freedom. I'm bringing up past instances of conflicts fought in the national interest (or supposedly so) that were more or less roundly supported. In fact where do I actually say half the things you freak out over. Saddam supporter? I'm questioning your stance on the issues. It's a debate thing (in your own words) get it? And let's not get into the label thing either, I get enough of that also. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 11:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
Well, I had asked you again, what unprovoked conflicts had we involved ourselves in for the sake of our freedom? So yeh, why would I POSSIBLY think when you put up a list of unprovoked conflicts, that might be what you were talking about, silly me. Freak out, glad you told me, I thought I was sitting here calmly typing while I got some work done, who knew?! Sadam Supporter, you acused me of wanting Sadam to stay in power, I would say if I had wanted him to remain in power, I would be supporting his regime, thus, Sadam Supporter, this isnt complex stuff here BCAR. And when I give you my stance, I am either freaking out, or whining, right? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 11:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 59163
Saddam was a really great guy and a great ruler. he should remain in power forever! *hugglies* |
Date: 4/7/2004 12:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 52155
Dagon's right, Saddam would have been nicer if we had sent ice cream instead of bombs...  |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
So the way George Bush handled the situation was the ONLY reasonable option? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
no we should have offered him the chance to reform. then we should have offered him the chance to leave the country and spent the rest of his life in utter paradise without a worry in the world. oh wait a tic, we did both. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
so we've come to the conclusion that saddam wasnt a primo person to keep around right? we've come to the understanding that saddam was given plenty of time to repent his ways and chose not we. we've also come to understand that before the war saddam (and the other 54 lackies we were after) were offered asylum in libya. what do you believe we should have done? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Thats right, there was no military action we could have taken but this "To hell with the UN! To hell with the rest of the world! We will use whatever evidence we can find, no matter how shaky, and we will go to war no matter what! This was the only way to have handled the situation, right? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
the UN also offered saddam exile, which he refused by the way. you should look this stuff up. go through any search engine or pick up an old time or newsweek |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
I suppose you also say"Hell, you know he did it, I know he did it, whoi needs a trial, fry him." Right? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
which brings me to my original point. we should have given them ice cream instead of invading. thats the only thing that could have been done to keep you liberals at bay. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
no, i say give him a trail. let the trail be by the iraqi people too, away from his sunni minority courts. they'd shoot him by sundown |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
trial, trail. same difference |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Yeah I read it all too. See, if you dont agree with the way Bush went about it, that means you are a Sadam supporter, you think he is a great guy, and you know nothing about antional security. Yeah, that sounds reasonable, just like it was reasonable to throw a "You dont play right, your not my friend any more" temper tantrum with France. Of course, that all makes perfect sense, that isn't an unreasonabl black and white way to look at it at all is it? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
you still havent answered my question. what was your great plan? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Because I am against war at all times, and I do not believe in ever shooting at the enemy, right Dagon? Because you know that much about me right? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
I think I made it clear, we didn't have to go off on our own stomping away like a child, we didnt have to urinate all over foreign relations, it wasn't neccessary to go around the UN. If we had not acted in a childish manner, the chances of us being much further along to finding the end of this and handling it faster, and more efficiently would be far greater. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
And you have answered NONE of mine. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Think what you like, but my millitary service speaks for itself, and my combat experience is probobly beyond yours. So do not presume that I would look at this in such a black and white cut and dry manner. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
let the UN handle it? like they were handling the situation since the first iraq war? yea, real good idea. the UN plan was to shake a finger at iraq while turning their heads to him killing his own people. he did chemical tests on the kurds, he used helicopters to chop down people he didnt like, and he regularly forced people to move from their homes because he felt sunni arabs should be leaving in those homes. real nice guy. real good UN plan. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
what question have you asked me that i havent answered? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
besides, do you honestly believe the UN has any power? thats kind of sad. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Just look for the question marks. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
You really are just being silly. No, the UN has no real power, but it is a bonding unit between us, and many of our allies, which did not stand behind us because of the way we turned our backs on the UN. MAny say other countries turned their backs on us, but they never mention we turned our first. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Here, I will list questions again for you since you seemed to miss them the first time. This was the only way to have handled the situation, right? I suppose you also say"Hell, you know he did it, I know he did it, whoi needs a trial, fry him." Right? See, if you dont agree with the way Bush went about it, that means you are a Sadam supporter, you think he is a great guy, and you know nothing about antional security. Yeah, that sounds reasonable, just like it was reasonable to throw a "You dont play right, your not my friend any more" temper tantrum with France. Of course, that all makes perfect sense, that isn't an unreasonabl black and white way to look at it at all is it? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
It is all black and white, right? Ice cream cones, or turning our backs on the world community... right? Thsoe were the only choices? |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 12:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Must be nice to see the world in such plain and simple black and white terms. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 1:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
I am afraid I am cursed with shades of gray. |
Date: 4/7/2004 2:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
Must be fun to be such a big drama queen.  |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 3:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
The best you can do is call me a drama queen, you could have at least said something that had to do with the discussion, or something that is even true. Go ahead, tell me I am wrong, tell me they are not making this a black an white issue. |
Date: 4/7/2004 5:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 14226
Oh my god! I can't believe that people can justify war in such a way. The world is a sad place   |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 5:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
which leads me to believe that you are a democrat |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 5:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
i answered your first question by saying that we have "handled" the situation in many different ways, all of which have failed, then i asked you what your plan was, to which i received no response. to your second question i responded "Date: 4/7/2004 12:40:00 PM ( Your Reply ) From Authorid: 59163 no, i say give him a trail. let the trail be by the iraqi people too, away from his sunni minority courts. they'd shoot him by sundown". you must have missed that somehow. and your last question was pretty much answered by the whole UN rant. if you arent stopping the problem, you're aiding it. only you can prevent forest fires buddy. and still, whats your solution? you're doing an excellent job of saying that its not a "black and white" situation. real A+ plus work there. but you still havent added anything. you're just complaining, you're not coming up with any solutions. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 6:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Dagon you won't get any solutions, definative party affiliations, commitments or substance there. The modus operandi is word twisting, selective reading, out of context quotes and in the end indignant complaints of unfair treatment and thuggery on the part of those who dare to disagree. I'd call that text book Democrat. |
Date: 4/7/2004 9:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
There are so many straw men in this arguement I hardly know where to begin.  |
Date: 4/7/2004 9:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 50435
They went to Iraq why? And it all could have been avoided how? Why should Saddam have "stepped down" and who should he have stepped down to? It's a well known fact that the U.S. has some major WMD of their own yet nobody says anything about it lest they be deemed some pinko-commie and provokes the U.S. to invade them. Oh, sorry, the excuse is the U.S. would never test on their own people and they're "responsible" with their WMDs. Yeah, nice one. They don't gas or poison, they just shoot and bomb. That justifies it for me. As for the cigarette thing, Phy, give it up. There are no credible reports that can pin lung cancer and whatever else they claim cigarettes cause. I've said it once and I'll say it again, in order to claim that cigarettes cause lung cancer you have to have all smokers contract lung cancer at some point. Funny how it seems that the non-smokers are the ones who get it more often. Fact: Many smokers don't ever get lung cancer or any other cancers. Fact: Many smokers don't ever wind up with any major diseases at all. There's no concrete evidence. It's just more propaganda from the non-smoking majority. I'm not saying it's healthy. I'm just sayin' that the whole cancer bit should have a lid put on it until they can absolutely prove what they claim.  |
Date: 4/7/2004 9:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
"But if he's a republican, he must've supported President Bush's decision to invad Iraq. And he did, because there was a greater cause, the elmination of an inferioir force. But my teacher explained that Bush invaded on a hunch and made up a crap excuse like they needed to invesgigate. They didn't have to invesgigate by killing innocent Iraqi civilians when there were no weapons of mass destruction. And if Sadaam is an inferior force, why does he need to be eliminated." ------------------------------------------------------------- To start, there is an assumption that because the opponent is Republican he supported the war. Pat Buchanan the syndicated columnist is a Republican and did not support the war. But for the sake of arguement lets assume anyway. The elimination of an inferior force is not a good reason for going to war, but that is not one of the stated reasons that has been given by the Bush administration. The prevented use of hidden WMD's is the number one reason, followed (in no order) by regional stability, breaking the cease fire agreements, following through with UN mandates to punish those violations, stopping genocide, crimes against humanity. The first reason was acted on based on information verified by the previous administration, the UN and several foreign governments, including those who opposed us going to war in the first place. When such evidence is cooberated by so many sources, including those hostile to you, assuming the evidence is valid is not unreasonable. Second, in a country as large as Iraq, such weapons might be hidden for years, especially given the document tampering that preceeded and the looting that followed the regime's fall. And that assumes the WMD's are still in Iraq; there is circumstancial evidence that the WMD's may have been moved to Iran or Syria. Third, there is the matter of Saddam's stalling tactics and violations of agreed upon inspections. If there was nothing to hide, why stall the inspectors even for a moment? Free, uninhibited, surprize inspections were the agreement and Saddam, regardless of whether you agree with the war or not, DID play roadblock games with the inspection teams. Innocent men don't do that. --------- And that brings up another point. Leftist polemics describe mass U.S. killings of "innocent" people. That is a bald faced lie. The Baathist party subjugated the Iraqi people with brutality. Now that the U.S. is in Iraq there are no more Iraqi parents forced to watch Saddam's henchmen drop their children out of helocopters.
|
|
Date: 4/7/2004 9:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
"then i asked you what your plan was, to which i received no response." Dagon, once again, I will post this... "I think I made it clear, we didn't have to go off on our own stomping away like a child, we didnt have to urinate all over foreign relations, it wasn't neccessary to go around the UN. If we had not acted in a childish manner, the chances of us being much further along to finding the end of this and handling it faster, and more efficiently would be far greater." As for ""Date: 4/7/2004 12:40:00 PM ( Your Reply ) From Authorid: 59163 no, i say give him a trail. let the trail be by the iraqi people too, away from his sunni minority courts. they'd shoot him by sundown" yes I did miss that, and that was my fault. To tell the truth I wasn't asking about Sadam, I was talking about general people within our court system, and the way you seem to look at the situation. It was supposed to be preceeded by "The police arrest a man." I was distracted, and left off that part, but I do appologise for missing your respone. "if you arent stopping the problem, you're aiding it." Where is it I said "leave it alone, and dont do anything about the problem? "word twisting, selective reading, out of context quotes and in the end indignant complaints of unfair treatment and thuggery on the part of those who dare to disagree." Back it up. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 9:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
"in a country as large as Iraq, such weapons might be hidden for years" According to the Bush administration three months was simply too long. Now I hear Rumsfeld sounding liuke the UN calling for more time. "Saddam's stalling tactics and violations of agreed upon inspections." UN inspections that the US is not intitled to inforce without the UN. "And that brings up another point. Leftist polemics describe mass U.S. killings of "innocent" people." You are going to sit there in ALL HONESTY, and tell us that there have been no civilian casualties in Iraq killed by US forces? I gotta hear this. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 10:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
"I agree that abortion is bad but it's a woman's choice." ---------------------------------------------- Let me try and show the numerous flaws in that arguement, and hopefully change your mind. Let me start by saying that, per the Bible, a woman is allowed to do with her body as she sees fit. (The Bible describes man as being created in God's own likeness - as a free moral agent, with the ability to choose our own course of action, and with the responsibility to accept the consequences of our actions. Since the body is the house of the soul owned by the soul, and the soul is free to do as it pleases as long as it accepts the consequences, we can do with our bodies as we see fit.) Now grab any biology science textbook you wish - Jr High to postgrad level and look what it says about procreation. For all plant and all animals, save one, life begins at fertilization, the union of two different DNA strands to make a third. Science conceeds that life begins at conception in all cases but one. And that one is us. Only humans are exempt in our science texts. Why? Political reasons. The left of the political spectrum has adopted scientific materialism as it's philosophy du jour, and scientific materialism teaches that once the mechanism of change are understood - whether that is biological evolution or SOCIAL ENGINEERING - they can be manipulated towards a desired end. We can manipulate social institutions to produce the values in society we want, such as sexual liberation unfettered by moral responsibility in this example. That is why for human beings life is not concidered began at conception, because that would imply moral responsibility for the protection of that life. Can't have you think its a baby, because you will follow old fashioned values instead of the new direction our societal leaders want us to go. |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 10:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
"You are going to sit there in ALL HONESTY, and tell us that there have been no civilian casualties in Iraq killed by US forces? I gotta hear this." ---------------------------- No, there have been innocent civilians killed. BUT NOT BECAUSE WE TARGETED THEM! And the author implies that is what we're doing. We try to avoid civilian casualties, but the Baathists sure didn't: in the early part of the war a Baathist commandeered a van filled with children and pregnant women and drove it up to a military checkpoint. U.S. forces ordered the van to stop, but the gunman who pointed an AK47 into the belly of a 7 month pregnant woman said keep going. The U.S. forces fired warning shots, and then opened fire on the van, killing the driver, a young child, and the gunman, and wounding the rest. The U.S. forces, once they realized what had happened tried to save the lives of the woman and child, but couldn't. Now are YOU going to tell me there is no moral difference between what our soldiers did and what the Baathist did? I want to hear THAT! |
|
Date: 4/7/2004 10:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
" UN inspections that the US is not intitled to inforce without the UN." ---------------- Wrong. Read the cease fire agreement again. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 3:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 59163
word twisting? theres no word twising. i thought i made it pretty clear. lets try again. you still havent come up with a solution, just more complaining. how is this a plan exactly? "I think I made it clear, we didn't have to go off on our own stomping away like a child, we didnt have to urinate all over foreign relations, it wasn't neccessary to go around the UN. If we had not acted in a childish manner, the chances of us being much further along to finding the end of this and handling it faster, and more efficiently would be far greater." explain to me how that is a plan and not just more complaining. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 1:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
So Dagon, anything I say will be a complaint as long as it goes against what was done, and what you believe. The idea of trying to AVOID civilian casualties is a very loose one Bryant. Trying to avoid civilian casualties consists of "Are there civilians there? Yes sir. Is the guy we wanna kill there too? Yes sir. Blow it up." Plain and simple. It is a part of war. That is the way it works. Been there, done that, didnt even get a t-shirt.No we didnt target them, but we targeted where we knew they were. But hey, we live by the rules Stalin layed out "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." The fact is these people were innocent and killed, and George Bush killed them. Why are his hands less bloody, because he said it was for their own good? It may have been a hrorrid thing to do when that man shot the woman in the stomach, but do you honestly believe we did not kill pregnant women? Why, because she wasn't a major target, that means we didn't realise we were doing it? Yeah, Bush is a bigger man because he got to kill them blindly without looking into the eyes of his victems. And regardless, we cannot inforce UN RESSOLUTIONS without the UN. That is like me enforcing Texas laws because I am a resident, but not designated law inforcment. |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 1:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
And when did I accuse you of word twisting? |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 1:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
look up complaint in the dictionary. then look up solution. then apply solution to "solution to this problem is...". thats your homework for today |
|
Date: 4/8/2004 2:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Dagon, so what YOU want is a solution to things that have already happpend? The mistakes already having been made? |
Date: 4/8/2004 2:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
1 : to express grief, pain, or discontent
2 : to make a formal accusation or charge uh huh... so how is stateing my plan for what SHOULD have happend (when that is what you asked me to do) complaining. |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 4:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 59163
i want to hear the phydeux plan. and i want it to have nothing to do with what you think bush did wrong. no more "we shouldnt have" and more "we should have". and make sure the should haves are things we havent already tried. once you do that, get back to me. havent you ever had to make a business plan or proposition? same idea captain |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 8:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
A business plan is for the future, we are talking about A PAST EVENT. That involves removing what I think we should not have done and inserting what I think we should have. Sorry if you dont like what I think we should have done. You asked I answered. |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 8:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 59163
so in other words, you've got nothing |
|
Date: 4/9/2004 2:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
NO, you just refused my answer. Lets ask, did I say what I thought we should have done in the first place folks? |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 12:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Thanks for your response, Phydeux. Although I do not have precise numbers in front of me, I think that Iraqi extremists have killed more of their countrymen than we have. Saddam revealed his mindset in the Gulf War by placing non-combatants around military targets, thinking that the US would do what it could to avoid "collateral damage." He was right. In this war, Iraqi extremists, united in their anti-American vitriol, are willing to sacrifice their friends and neighbors for the greater good of forcing Coalition forces out of their country. I do not believe we are going out of our way to kill civilians, though the deaths of innocents are inevitable in a war. |
|
Date: 4/10/2004 12:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Phydeux, to address another legitimate concern: IMO, the President's decision to go into Iraq without either UN approval or support was the right decision. Removing Saddam by force was the right thing to do. Why? Nothing else was effective. Saddam had defied UN resolutions for years and [wisely] gambled that the UN didn't have the stomach to support the endless flurry of paperwork. The inspectors had more than enough time; the UN chose not to enforce resolutions it had passed, deciding instead that Saddam would somehow acquiesce out of the goodness of his heart. Following the pattern of Neville Chamberlain's fatal decisions six decades ago, there are some that refuse to believe that bullies can only be dealt with by greater strength, not by negotiation and time. |
|
Date: 4/11/2004 1:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
phy, can you explain to me how your plan would have worked? |
Date: 4/11/2004 5:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
George Bush said the reason he was going to invade Iraq was because they had WMD. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th, there are plenty fo other dangerous dictators all around the world but the reasons given by bush and blair for the invasion all centered around WMD. Anyone who tries to justify the war is saying that the ends justify the means.  |
Date: 4/12/2004 5:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 43592
I'm sorry I never said anything in my own debate but I was extremely busy and didn't have time to be online let alone on USM. BUt thank for your replies, I enjoyed reading them.  |
