Fallujah Killings

[dissention]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20040401/ts_nm/iraq_images_dc

Great article about what happened in Iraq, but be forewarned: some of the pictures are quite disturbing. Not for the faint of heart.

[strandinthewind]

Apparently, that area is full od bad trouble. I cannot imagine what those poor people went through.

Sad - very sad.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Apparently, that area is full od bad trouble. I cannot imagine what those poor people went through.

Sad - very sad.

It's heartbreaking. BUT - these are the kinds of things that need to be broadcast on the new every night. Not bull**** about the latest political ads or Karen Hughes' ****ty new book. The media sanitized this war beyond belief and only now are they beginning to come out of their shells and tell it like it is. This is war and its effect. News organizations are saying that they simply can't show these images on TV because they are too disturbing, yet they had no problems whatsoever with blasting pictures of the Hussein brothers all over the airwaves. :rolleyes:

[CarneVaca]

Violence begets violence. The most typical reaction I've seen so far is let's blast 'em.

The decision to act violently, when done in ignorance or indifference to past actions, is dangerous and will only provoke more violence.

[DeeGeMe]

Weren't these supposed to be the people who were going to embrace us as their liberators? Yeah, right.

BTW--these guys weren't contractors: they were mercenaries. Ex-military special ops. Blackwater USA operates a paramilitary training camp in North Carolina. Lots of law enforcement agencies send their folks there for special training. I'm not sure what they were doing in Iraq, but these guys weren't there to rebuild the country in the traditional sense of the word. Whatever it was that they were doing, it had a special ops angle to it.

That being said, what happened to them is beyond awful. Thanks Mr. Bush.

[strandinthewind]

I still maintain 80% of the country is peacful. But, that does not mean they want us there any longer than we have to be. Supposedly, we have a June exit date. I do not think that will happen. I think we will be there for years to come.

[strandinthewind]

from the nytimes online (www.nytimes.com)

Marines Defend Decision to Stay Out of Falluja After Killings
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

Published: April 1, 2004


ALLUJA, Iraq, April 1 — Marine commanders defended their decision today not to send troops into Falluja to quell the macabre disturbances that followed after four American civilians were killed and their bodies dragged through the streets.

More than 4,000 marines are stationed near the restive town in the Sunni Triangle but when the violence broke out on Wednesday and the streets of Falluja exploded in mayhem, Marine commanders decided not to intervene.

"Should we have sent in a tank so we could have gotten, with all due respect, four dead bodies back?" said Col. Michael Walker, a civil affairs commander. "What good would that have done? A mob is a mob. We would have just provoked them. The smart play was to let this thing fade out."

As the rage cooled and life got back to normal in Falluja today, many townspeople said they felt a mixture of pride and shame. Pride in the attack that killed four American security consultants, who many people in town still think were working for the Central Intelligence Agency. And shame in watching the bodies get ripped apart and mutilated, a grave sin in Islam.

"All the Falluja people accept this incident but they did not accept the dragging of bodies," said Mohammed Khalifa, a trader of spare parts who closed his shop during the disturbance in a sign of disgust. "All men are creatures of God. The clerics will not tolerate this."

American officials said they met today with local leaders, including Falluja's mayor and several clerics. American officials said the clerics committed to issuing a fatwa, or religious edict, at Friday prayers condemning the attack. The clerics also helped American authorities recover three of the four bodies, which were dragged from burning vehicles by a jeering mob and then taken to a bridge over the Euphrates where at least two charred corpses were strung up by a rope and dangled over the water.

American officials said many of Falluja's elders were embarrassed by the grisly scene and all the publicity it received.

"These people are acutely aware that Falluja now has a reputation as the worst place on earth," said an occupation official working in the area, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "But they have to be careful what they say. Or they will end up dead."

Shortly after the meeting with town elders today, a translator for the Marines was shot in the neck. He was in critical condition tonight.

Also today, a Marine Humvee was attacked — twice. First it was disabled by a roadside bomb, which wounded several marines. Then, after the marines left, a crowd set fire to the Humvee in a scene reminiscent of the blaze on Wednesday.

American soldiers have not ventured into downtown Falluja for days. But military commanders said they were not backing off the area, an ongoing flashpoint of anti-American hatred.

"We will be back in Falluja," said Brig. General Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for the occupation forces. "It will be at the time and place of our choosing. We will hunt down the criminals. We will kill them or we will capture them. And we will pacify Falluja."

[Sugar]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
BTW--these guys weren't contractors: they were mercenaries. Ex-military special ops. Blackwater USA operates a paramilitary training camp in North Carolina. Lots of law enforcement agencies send their folks there for special training. I'm not sure what they were doing in Iraq, but these guys weren't there to rebuild the country in the traditional sense of the word. Whatever it was that they were doing, it had a special ops angle to it.

.

My understanding is that they were doing security of some sort.

This is so awful. Beyond words...:distress:

[strandinthewind]

AND IMO - the worst part is no matter why we are there or whether it was right or wrong is not the core issue for the Iraqi's anymore. IMO the core issue is we destroyed their country with the promise of a better life. Now we HAVE to stay until we do that. I think for the most part not having SH is a vast improvement and we have or at least are working on improving Iraq. I mean schools have been built, power lines laid, etc. But, we cannot leave until the job is done and that could be YEARS.

[Sugar]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
AND IMO - the worst part is no matter why we are there or whether it was right or wrong is not the core issue for the Iraqi's anymore. IMO the core issue is we destroyed their country with the promise of a better life. Now we HAVE to stay until we do that. I think for the most part not having SH is a vast improvement and we have or at least are working on improving Iraq. I mean schools have been built, power lines laid, etc. But, we cannot leave until the job is done and that could be YEARS.

Truely. What are we going to do--turn around tomorrow and say, "Ya know what everyone was right. We shouldn't be in Iraq. We're gonna pull out tomorrow." We can't.

SH was a bastard, but he was a known quantity and the country was stable. I also believe he had very little connection with any Muslim extremists. And now? There's all these warring factions PLUS the infiltration of extremists from outside the country. There's a lot of people who see this as a power grab, and I don't know who's going to come out on top. And what's to say that if we do leave things in a semi-democratic state, that once we're gone whoever is in power rolls back any and all democratic or more secular rulings and we end up with another Saudi Arabia or Iran. Or worse.

What a morass.

[strandinthewind]

I know - I mean I, being the eternal optimist (ask Dissention :laugh: ) , would like to think we are doing the right thing. But, the lying to get to the war, having no publicly stated pland and no clearly apparent or discernable plan for rebuilding after the war, and the fleecing of the govt. by Halliburton makes faith a hard thing to hold onto, even for me.

Only time will tell IMO - and I hope it falls out way.

[DeeGeMe]

There's an AP article out today detailing how and why these private security firms are over in Iraq. It seems that there just aren't enough US military personnel to go around so they subcontract with private firms like Blackwater to help them beef up their security. Apparently private security firms are patrolling the airport in Baghdad, provide security for news organizations over there, in addition to being on the ground in more dangerous areas. Bottom line is that there aren't enough troops over there to keep the entire country secure--something the Democrats have said all along and something the Republican administration has denied right from the word "go."

[dissention]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
There's an AP article out today detailing how and why these private security firms are over in Iraq. It seems that there just aren't enough US military personnel to go around so they subcontract with private firms like Blackwater to help them beef up their security. Apparently private security firms are patrolling the airport in Baghdad, provide security for news organizations over there, in addition to being on the ground in more dangerous areas. Bottom line is that there aren't enough troops over there to keep the entire country secure--something the Democrats have said all along and something the Republican administration has denied right from the word "go."

:nod: :nod: :nod:

We're too concerned with shutting down their newspapers than making sure we have enough troops. Where are our allies? Nowhere to be found...

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I still maintain 80% of the country is peacful. But, that does not mean they want us there any longer than we have to be. Supposedly, we have a June exit date. I do not think that will happen. I think we will be there for years to come.

Probably in some degree.

About the war media coverage...the big three networks and CNN usually only report terrorist acts in the country. They neglect to mention the fact that, like you said, 80%, or so, of the country is stable and even peaceful towards Americans. The networks also fail to mention the amount of rebuilding that has gone on in the country since the official end of the conflict. Most Utility levels are higher then when Sadaam was in power and unemployment is much lower.

If I based all my news of Iraq on the networks, I would think the country is going absolutely crazy.

On a side note, my brother’s best friend just returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq (thankfully!) and he said things are actually going great. He said that most of the terrorist acts now being carried out are from outsiders (from Syria, Iran and remnants of Al Qaeda) who have leaked into the country to try and wreck havoc on the troops. He also said the general mood of the military is one of disgust at how the media back home is almost ignoring the huge humanitarian efforts and progress that have taken place since the end of the conflict.

Food for thought…

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But, we cannot leave until the job is done and that could be YEARS.

Yup. We're stuck in this horrific cesspool now. Where's the next stop on the Nation Building Express?
Vote carefully in November folks. It's only going to get worse.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yup. We're stuck in this horrific cesspool now. Where's the next stop on the Nation Building Express?
Vote carefully in November folks. It's only going to get worse.

Only if you vote for Kerry!

“I’m for the war….no, wait…I’m against it….but, only before I was for it…..oh I don’t know what I’m for!!!”:laugh:

At least Bush has a long term plan for the Middle East that doesn’t include appeasement…even his old man couldn’t do that!

And wasn’t it the liberals who were bitchin’ about Bush Sr. “not finishing the job” by getting Sadaam in ‘91????

Rob:cool:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by dissention
Where are our allies? Nowhere to be found...

Don't worry, they'll be back for a cut of the oil :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
At least Bush has a long term plan for the Middle East that doesn’t include appeasement…even his old man couldn’t do that!

W has never stated any plan for the Middle East. For that matter, he has never stated any plan for Iraq other than in a general way.

Thus, my problem with W. I mean he talks a good game but there is nothing underneath it. I mean having no discernable or stated exit plan for Iraq was unsoncionable IMO.

[dissention]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Don't worry, they'll be back for a cut of the oil :nod:

Oh, you mean the oil that the US has planned on getting it's hands on for years? The oil that we went to war for? ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
At least Bush has a long term plan for the Middle East that doesn’t include appeasement…even his old man couldn’t do that!

And wasn’t it the liberals who were bitchin’ about Bush Sr. “not finishing the job” by getting Sadaam in ‘91????

Rob:cool:

Bush doesn't even have a plan to wipe his own ass, for cripes sake! He doesn't have a plan for the Middle East and he never did! Please let me know what it is, because I'd love to tear it apart.

And us liberals were only bitching that ChimpCo Sr. should've gotten rid of Saddam because we wouldn't be in this mess if he had.

Now, I'm being serious. I know that you agree with Bush on the "war on terror," but how can you vote for someone with all of his other goals? He wants to strip away abortion rights, he wants to write hate into the constitution, I mean he just isn't a good man. Don't these other issues matter?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Oh, you mean the oil that the US has planned on getting it's hands on for years? The oil that we went to war for? ;)

Yeah, you know that reserve they're holding on to that's driving the gas prices to an all time high.;) Dumbya and his friends at OPEC gotta make all the gravy they can before they throw his ass out in January. On the other hand, maybe the Peak Oil contingent is on to something.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/politics/main610068.shtml

Stuck In The Cold War?

As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice prepares to testify before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House is hoping to refute charges that President Bush led an "administration in amber," focused on obsolete security concerns in a world that had already changed.

At the end of the Cold War, the paradigm of state-sponsored terror, of symmetric state security threats, had fallen with the Soviet Union. Did the Bush administration recognize that America's chief enemies were no longer states but decentralized terror groups? The question now haunts this White House, which, it's fair to note, was only in office for eight months at the time the United States suffered its first continental attack since the war of 1812.

"The argument is if you would have been more vigilant, you would have been more lucky," said Michael O'Hanlon, a prominent national security analyst at the Brookings Institution. "Clearly there is something to this critique. The mentality was not as focused on al Qaeda as Clinton had been in the later years."

O'Hanlon says there are probably two reasons for this: "The specialty of seniors in the administration harkens back to Cold War and traditional state-on-state issues. And as you know, there was a little of an anything-but-Clinton attitude on issues."

During the Sept. 11 hearings on Capitol Hill, Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, said that he briefed Rice in December 2000 that she was going to "spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally and al Qaeda specifically, than any other issue."

This Thursday, Rice will respond for the record to charges that the administration primarily focused on Cold War security concerns, on state threats, rather than non-state actors like al Qaeda.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that on the very day of the attacks, Sept. 11, 2001, Rice was scheduled to deliver a speech on the major security concerns facing the United States. In remarks prepared for the speech, she never mentions al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden; instead, she focuses on the need for a missile-defense system.

In February 2001, and again in August of that year, President Bush said, respectively, that "We must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses," and that the United States was "committed to defending America and our allies against ballistic missile attacks."

In effort to spell out the administration's main security concerns, Rice wrote in the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs that the "real challenges" to the United States were from "big powers, particularly Russia and China."

Yet by the late 1990s, the Clinton administration had concluded that al Qaeda – or related Islamic extremists – were behind a series of attacks including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa and the USS Cole attack of 2000, as well as the thwarted 1995 plan to blow up 11 U.S. passenger jets over the Far East and an alleged plot to bomb Los Angles International Airport.

"Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney had a realpolitik view of the world that says it is the great powers that matter and balance of power and strengthening our defense forces against this traditional threat," explained Michael McFaul, a Russia expert at Stanford University and a former colleague of Rice. "So that's why the focus on Russia, that's why the focus on China, that's why missile defense."

The recent Washington firestorm began last week after President Bush's former top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, published his book, "Against All Enemies," and testified before the Sept. 11 commission that the Bush administration undercut the war on terror with its preoccupation with Iraq.

More to the point was Clarke's statement to CBS "60 Minutes" that, "It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier."

Indeed, most of the key players who forged the Bush administration's anti-terror policy were veteran Cold Warriors who served in previous Republican administrations:


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was the youngest head of the Defense Department ever when he first served in the post from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford. He later chaired the U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission in 1998, and in 2000 led a commission to assess national security concerns in space.


Vice President Dick Cheney served as Secretary of Defense from 1989 to 1993 in the administration of the first President Bush, overseeing Operation Desert Storm, the first war in Iraq.


Those considered the intellectual masterminds of the current war – hawks like Richard Perle, recently chairman of the Defense Policy Board, and Paul Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secretary of Defense – both found their start in the Reagan administration. Perle is often credited for much of Ronald Reagan's hard-line posture against the Soviet Union.


Condoleezza Rice never served in government prior to the current Bush administration, but she was a Sovietologist by training; her academic expertise is on America's former superpower rival.

Biographies notwithstanding, the Bush White House did make a major policy shift following the Sept. 11 attacks, focusing on asymmetrical warfare and the non-state threat of Islamic extremism.

Nevertheless, prior to Sept. 11, 2001, a CBS News review of speeches and public remarks by President Bush suggests he did not mention al Qaeda once, although he did send a letter to Congress extending Clinton-era sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Osama bin Laden.

As O'Hanlon put it, the question is not one of prevention of the Sept. 11 attacks but whether the Bush administration had prioritized the threat posed by al Qaeda above that of states viewed as rogues, like Iran, and major powers, like China – and whether greater vigilance might have meant a greater likelihood of thwarting the attacks.

"It is an argument that is suggestive, not conclusive, but it is still moderately persuasive and I've heard some Clinton people make the argument in off-the-record internal discussions here at Brookings and elsewhere," O'Hanlon said. "We do know now that it was knowable. That there were certain people on the terrorist watch list that were in the country, that there were certain tactics for using airplanes that had been discussed before and not given sufficient attention."

Clarke's book argues that President Bush and Wolfowitz on the day of Sept. 11, and the week following, had a preoccupation with Iraq as the culprit in spite of top terrorism officials reporting that al Qaeda was responsible.

Similar accounts have come from former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil and former General Wesley Clark, a Republican who later transferred parties and mounted a failed run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clark said that when he was in the Pentagon prior to Sept. 11 there was wide discussion of an impending attack on Iraq, that "taking down Saddam became a hobbyhorse" for the group around Rumsfeld.

"These folks never took their eye off Saddam in the '90s and then obviously after 9/11 they had a new argument which to them was partly an opportunity," O’Hanlon said. "So I think it really symbolized not-so-much their Cold War thinking as their Desert Storm thinking. The hawkish part of the Bush 41 crowd that increasingly saw Saddam as a threat onward. That was the great strand of continuity."

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Bush doesn't even have a plan to wipe his own ass, for cripes sake! He doesn't have a plan for the Middle East and he never did! Please let me know what it is, because I'd love to tear it apart.

And us liberals were only bitching that ChimpCo Sr. should've gotten rid of Saddam because we wouldn't be in this mess if he had.

Now, I'm being serious. I know that you agree with Bush on the "war on terror," but how can you vote for someone with all of his other goals? He wants to strip away abortion rights, he wants to write hate into the constitution, I mean he just isn't a good man. Don't these other issues matter?

Abortion is more of a religious issue...I don't have a strong opinion. I do think abortion is used as an easy way out for younger people who don't take enough precaution. I say if you are dumb enough to get pregnant, then that's your fault and you should have to deal....but that issue means nothing to me in regards to whether or not I vote for Bush.

I don't know anything about putting "hate" and the constitution but it sounds like spin. All I see is libs complaining about taking God out of everything...who cares? They are just words...there are more pressing issues in the world. Like people blowing themselves and others up in the name of "Allah".

I am fiscally conservative and I do have issues with Bush's spending but his plan seems to be taking positive effect now. I am completely behind a proactive approach to the war on terror. Even if it means we have to do it alone (:eek: :nod: ). Screw France...we have to worry about our own security...not appeasing the UN.

The economy and our national security...that's what is nost important to me and Bush is doing a fine job right now with the cards he was dealt, IMO.

That's why he will get my vote...at least for now.

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
I don't know anything about putting "hate" and the constitution but it sounds like spin. All I see is libs complaining about taking God out of everything...who cares? They are just words...there are more pressing issues in the world. Like people blowing themselves and others up in the name of "Allah".

Rob:cool:

A few years ago, a friend of mine had to buy medication for his partner, who was very sick at the time. He paid around $10,000 a month in cash for it fgor 12 months when the ins. would then kick in. Technically, this was a donation under the IRS' rules. So, the purchaser of the meds should have also paid around an extra $60,000 to the IRS and some to the state gov. as well. If they had been married instead of just being partnerd for many years, no gift tax would be applicable. So, I think that is a pressing issue. Moreover, a have another set of friends one of which makes several million dollars a year. She deposits her check (over $500,000 a month) into a joint checking account. Techincally, she should pay gift taxes of around $300,000 or more of each check. Legally married people would not have to pay that. AND - there is no way to draw up a civil conract to escape that majority of that effect.

So, while yes, W's idiotic and unnecessary lying to invade Iraq to further the War on Terror is indeed a pressing issue. It clearly is not the only one to many people. But that is what the R's want America to think. They want you to pick the shell in the game that does not have the peas under it. They want you not to look while they take away civil right and form an intolerant fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

Also, the reason people say hate is being written into the Const. is because people hate gay people - sad but true. I mean as I and others have said before, adultery is a far bigger threat to marriage than allowing same sex marriage. Yet, we hear nothing about a Const. Amendment to prohibit that. Why? Because people hate fags - sad but true.

Finally, I, like you, am a complete and total political fiscal conservative, but W has failed there as well. He has spent more like Teddy K. than Teddy K. and he has put us into a huge amount of debt to do it. Granted, he wasn't given a great situation at the beginning of his Pres. and 9/11 certainly did not help, but he has made poor choices. One example is the war on Iraq. I agree the invasion was justified based on the violation of the U.N. resolutions. But, the war was unnecessary or at least not immediately necessary as W depicted it. So, now W has spent well over $100 billion or so when we did not have it. Then, he and the R controlled Congress do not fund domestic programs as a result. Funding of domestic programs will generate growth here in America IMO far faster than paying Halliburton and a few other ancillary companies in Iraq. But, they chose to go to war on trumped up charges and now we are in huge debt for it. If W was my empolyee and did this to my business, I would fire him. Who would not?

[Sugar]

Originally posted by Rob67
I say if you are dumb enough to get pregnant, then that's your fault and you should have to deal....


I get that this isn't really a big deal to you, but I have to say this is one of the dumbest most short-sighted things I've ever heard you say. I hope you were just being glib and that you don't really mean it.

[strandinthewind]

I kind of have always agreed with that statement. Outside of rape or any other situation where it is not consenual, everyone knows to be safe to avoid pregnancy and disease. I think people are not safe (e.g. no condom) because it does not feel as good or they do not want to spoil the mood with a diaphram or they do not want the hassle of taking or cannot afford the pill. But, they are making a conscious choice that has a risk. So, yes, in that scenario - if you get pregnant, you have no one to blame but yourself - you made a choice. Readily available abortion as a method of birth control is not a good idea an a myriad of levels (health, having an abortion gets rid of the baby but not any diseases contracted during unprotected sex, and so on)

But, while I am against the actual abortion and could never have one, I do not think my choice should be put on someone who does not mind aborting a fetus for whatever reason they think. Who am I to tell them what to do? If they can live with it, more power to them.m It is not my business. Yet, this is another example of fundamentalist far right bozos trying condescendingly to force their utopia on everyone - they know what is best for everyone :rolleyes:

That is why I am pro-choice :cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Sugar
I get that this isn't really a big deal to you, but I have to say this is one of the dumbest most short-sighted things I've ever heard you say. I hope you were just being glib and that you don't really mean it.

Sorry...I feel that way...there were about five girls in my senior HS class that got pregnant during the school year...why? No Birth control and uncontrolled hormones. One of the girls had two abortions before graduation. If you feel you're mature enough to get it on then you should be mature enough to deal with the results....I think it is dumb to put yourself in that situation in the first place. Rape...now that is a different story all together. I don't really have a religious take on it.

Tell me why that's short sighted. Yeah, yeah...I know, "but people make mistakes!" Sorry, sometimes we have to pay for our mistakes. I am talking about people who use it as an easy out of a situation.

But I digress...like I said, it matters not to me in regards to who I vote for. It's a losing debate on either side anyway.

Rob :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
. . . Sorry, sometimes we have to pay for our mistakes. I am talking about people who use it as an easy out of a situation.

Americans want to accept no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. I mean people want to sue McDonalds because they made the choice to eat there, never exercise, and now they are fat. I mean come on.

[gldstwmn]

I thought this thread was about what's going on in the Middle East. It appears that it has become yet another venue for someone to spew some of his right wing hate.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
A few years ago, a friend of mine had to buy medication for his partner, who was very sick at the time. He paid around $10,000 a month in cash for it fgor 12 months when the ins. would then kick in. Technically, this was a donation under the IRS' rules. So, the purchaser of the meds should have also paid around an extra $60,000 to the IRS and some to the state gov. as well. If they had been married instead of just being partnerd for many years, no gift tax would be applicable. So, I think that is a pressing issue. Moreover, a have another set of friends one of which makes several million dollars a year. She deposits her check (over $500,000 a month) into a joint checking account. Techincally, she should pay gift taxes of around $300,000 or more of each check. Legally married people would not have to pay that. AND - there is no way to draw up a civil conract to escape that majority of that effect.

So, while yes, W's idiotic and unnecessary lying to invade Iraq to further the War on Terror is indeed a pressing issue. It clearly is not the only one to many people. But that is what the R's want America to think. They want you to pick the shell in the game that does not have the peas under it. They want you not to look while they take away civil right and form an intolerant fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

Also, the reason people say hate is being written into the Const. is because people hate gay people - sad but true. I mean as I and others have said before, adultery is a far bigger threat to marriage than allowing same sex marriage. Yet, we hear nothing about a Const. Amendment to prohibit that. Why? Because people hate fags - sad but true.

Finally, I, like you, am a complete and total political fiscal conservative, but W has failed there as well. He has spent more like Teddy K. than Teddy K. and he has put us into a huge amount of debt to do it. Granted, he wasn't given a great situation at the beginning of his Pres. and 9/11 certainly did not help, but he has made poor choices. One example is the war on Iraq. I agree the invasion was justified based on the violation of the U.N. resolutions. But, the war was unnecessary or at least not immediately necessary as W depicted it. So, now W has spent well over $100 billion or so when we did not have it. Then, he and the R controlled Congress do not fund domestic programs as a result. Funding of domestic programs will generate growth here in America IMO far faster than paying Halliburton and a few other ancillary companies in Iraq. But, they chose to go to war on trumped up charges and now we are in huge debt for it. If W was my empolyee and did this to my business, I would fire him. Who would not?

Again, it matters not to me. I'm not married, I don't plan on getting married. And I wouldn't look at it as a business if I was planning to. I don't care if you're gay or not. I am all for equality. If two women or two men want to get married, whatever. I could care less. This is not an issue that I am concerned with. I know some people are and that's fine, we all have a right to believe in what we want and our vote is our voice.

I concure that the situation is not perfect but Kerry has no answers that have made me change my mind. I know the Bush administration gets criticized for not having policy plans or whatever. But being in a time of war, I wouldn't want them to tell the world their strategy. I think the results of this war will be judged by history and I believe he thinks he is doing what is in our best national interests.

The "cesspole" in Iraq, or so it's been called on this site, was there before the war. It wasn't caused by it. Yes, I believe that the WMD intelligence was used by the administration as reasoning for the war. The same intelligence was shown to the congress who overwhelmingly supported the operation. If the CIA and other intelligence agencies are wrong on this then I am sure they will have to answer for it. That is where the Pres gets his information. He got it from them and he acted on it. First through UN resolutions and when they wouldn't do anything, he got together a group of allies to deal with it.

Why did most of our Congress reps and Senators vote in favor?? Including Kerry? Becuase they saw the same intelligence that Bush saw and concurred that action was necessary.

Isn't there a panel looking into why we weren't prepared for 9/11??? Isn't the big arguement about why the two administrations and the government didn't do something to stop it ahead of time? Wouldn't the Iraq Conflict be "acting" on intelligence to prevent possible terrorism or support of terrorism?

Why is this so hard to rationalize?

Yes, I know money is always involved...yes, I know they have Oil...but in history, there always was and there always will be economics at play. That doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

Sorry for the book!:)

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I thought this thread was about what's going on in the Middle East. It appears that it has become yet another venue for someone to spew some of his right wing hate.

:rolleyes:

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I thought this thread was about what's going on in the Middle East. It appears that it has become yet another venue for someone to spew some of his right wing hate.

I guess someone has to keep this place fair and balanced. The hate coming frrom the left is pretty rampant around here...

Besides...I don't hate anyone...I love people. Terrorists hate...I love!:wavey:

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Actually Congress did not see all of the intelligence and still has not seen all of the intelligence. Therein is the prob.

Again, I am glad SH is gone. But, I think W ought to be fired for how he did it. I mean is lying to sell it when you can't sell it any other way to be condoned when human lives are involved. I just cannot accept that. And here's why, he'll do it again. What is to stop him if we let him get away with it. So, I say i'd vote for a hole in a tree over that lying sack of fundamentalist far right tripe and his cronies.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Actually Congress did not see all of the intelligence and still has not seen all of the intelligence. Therein is the prob.

Again, I am glad SH is gone. But, I think W ought to be fired for how he did it. I mean is lying to sell it when you can't sell it any other way to be condoned when human lives are involved. I just cannot accept that. And here's why, he'll do it again. What is to stop him if we let him get away with it. So, I say i'd vote for a hole in a tree over that lying sack of fundamentalist far right tripe and his cronies.

To each his own, I guess.

All the same things were said about Reagan. And we did ok.

Rob:cool:

[Sugar]

Originally posted by Rob67
Sorry...I feel that way...there were about five girls in my senior HS class that got pregnant during the school year...why? No Birth control and uncontrolled hormones. One of the girls had two abortions before graduation. If you feel you're mature enough to get it on then you should be mature enough to deal with the results....I think it is dumb to put yourself in that situation in the first place. Rape...now that is a different story all together. I don't really have a religious take on it.

Tell me why that's short sighted. Yeah, yeah...I know, "but people make mistakes!" Sorry, sometimes we have to pay for our mistakes. I am talking about people who use it as an easy out of a situation.

But I digress...like I said, it matters not to me in regards to who I vote for. It's a losing debate on either side anyway.

Rob :cool:

I can't really argue with any of that, to a point. Yes we don't like to take responsibility...yada yada yada. Contracaption is available...yada yada yada...all that is true. And I despise women who use abortion as birth control. BUT we're talking about a child here, and you and strand are focusing on the woman.

So this asshole slut of a woman finds herself pregnant, admittedly because she was an asshole (obviously this isn't always the case, but I think these are the people we're really talking about here). So she needs to "pay" for her mistake; she needs to "deal with the results." So you want this asshole slut to raise a child?!?! Or worse, not?!?!

So this child is born. What do you think happens? She cloisters herself in a burka and says, "I need to deal with this because this is of my own doing"? This child grows up in questionable surroundings, perhaps on the welfare rolls, perhaps getting shuffled from home to home, perhaps because mom NEVER DID take responsibility for this child. What are the chances of this producing an upstanding member of society? When this child mugs you or breaks into your house, you tell me then that this woman got what was coming to her.

That, IMO, is why a statement like this is short-sighted and dumb.

I'm guessing you and strand don't have children...:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Whoa there !!!! :laugh:

I am not against anyone having the choice to abort. for any reason including using abortion as a birth control method. As I said, I am for it. I was just saying I could never have one because I do not think it is right for me. That is wildly different than passing judgement on someone else who thinks differently than I do and, therefore, makes the choice to abort. It is their choice as long as that baby is in them as far as I am concerned and no matter how repugnant I find that thought on a personal level.

I am also saying that with a little discipline, many preganacies could be avoided altogether. Sadly, people cannot make that choice. Again, its all about choice and people always go for the course of least resistance and the hell with the results.

Sorry for the confusion, if any :cool:

[Sugar]

Didn't mean to sound heavy handed there...:laugh:

I just loathe the whole, "she needs to take responsibility for her actions" argument when it comes to getting pregnant. It's just so...so stupid! And I can't even get to morality when I can't get past stupid. :laugh:

And, no Strand, I did not think for one second that you are a fascist. I don't even think Rob is a fascist. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Sugar
I can't really argue with any of that, to a point. Yes we don't like to take responsibility...yada yada yada. Contracaption is available...yada yada yada...all that is true. And I despise women who use abortion as birth control. BUT we're talking about a child here, and you and strand are focusing on the woman.

So this asshole slut of a woman finds herself pregnant, admittedly because she was an asshole (obviously this isn't always the case, but I think these are the people we're really talking about here). So she needs to "pay" for her mistake; she needs to "deal with the results." So you want this asshole slut to raise a child?!?! Or worse, not?!?!

So this child is born. What do you think happens? She cloisters herself in a burka and says, "I need to deal with this because this is of my own doing"? This child grows up in questionable surroundings, perhaps on the welfare rolls, perhaps getting shuffled from home to home, perhaps because mom NEVER DID take responsibility for this child. What are the chances of this producing an upstanding member of society? When this child mugs you or breaks into your house, you tell me then that this woman got what was coming to her.

That, IMO, is why a statement like this is short-sighted and dumb.

I'm guessing you and strand don't have children...:cool:

Throw it down, my girl. Throw it down. :nod: :nod: :nod:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Sugar
Didn't mean to sound heavy handed there...:laugh:

I just loathe the whole, "she needs to take responsibility for her actions" argument when it comes to getting pregnant. It's just so...so stupid! And I can't even get to morality when I can't get past stupid. :laugh:

And, no Strand, I did not think for one second that you are a fascist. I don't even think Rob is a fascist. ;)

Sorry...doesn't convince me. And I don't think it is short sighted. If having an abortion is the easiest end to that scenario you describe then maybe we should treat the parents in the situation like we do animals who can't control their behavior. Get them fixed:D .

And, no, I don't have a kid. I have always been careful. But that means absolutely nothing to this discussion. My best friend has a 4 year old that was a "mistake", if you will. He is a great father and understood the responibility that is now a part of his life. He made the changes he needed to make and the kid has two loving parents.

Again, I really don't have a strong opinion on abortion other then what I have seen and more often then not it is used as an easy out for people who can't control themselves. How does abortion address the problem?

Rob67:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Sugar

And, no Strand, I did not think for one second that you are a fascist. I don't even think Rob is a fascist. ;)

That's good...if you did then the credibility of our discussion would have gone right out the window!:wavey:

Rob

[Sugar]

Originally posted by Rob67
And, no, I don't have a kid. I have always been careful. But that means absolutely nothing to this discussion.

The only thing it means in this situation is that I have found that those who don't have children don't fully appreciate how much happens after pregnancy and birth. That there is a child a HUMAN that needs to be dealt with 24/7. It's easy to talk about stupid women getting pregnant when you don't address the child and it's life and lifetime on the other end.

And this isn't even an abortion argument to me, believe it or not! Like I said I can't get to morality when I can't get past stupid. Your friend made the right choice (the "positive choice" as Lindsey would say ;) ), but let there be no doubt in your mind that it was a CHOICE. There are a whole lot of OTHER choices for people in that situation, and people make them, and I know you know that.

IMO, it is stupid to say a woman needs to "deal with her actions" when you cannot AT ALL guarantee that will happen. A child is not a punishment, but it is a consequence. What is up in the air is whose consequence it is, and I'd say about 50% of the time it becomes society's consequence, not this woman's.

I know a woman who got pregnant when she was 14 and had the child. You think she's dealing with her actions"? You think it's "her consequence"? No. Her mother has been raising the child, with the help of welfare, for the last 15 years or so. So it's our consequence, my friend, via our tax dollars. I've also heard that this, now 15 year old girl, is a real handful. I see the judicial system in her future. More of our tax dollars at work. Her mother? Not sure. I know she's had other kids since, one of which was taken away by the state (our tax dollars at work). For whatever kids she has managed to keep I know she gets government assistance for. Is this reprehensible? Of course. Do I think this woman should be fixed? Yes I do. Is she "dealing with her actions"? Not really. Last I actually saw her she was hanging out in a bar having a good time. Her daughter would have been about 10.

It's just a faulty argument. That's all. I don't really need to convince you. This woman is plently convincing.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

Actually Congress did not see all of the intelligence and still has not seen all of the intelligence. Therein is the prob.

Who on the face of the planet didn't believe that Saddam had WMD? If he didn't have them, why didn't he prove it. Does anyone honestly think that his intentions were good?! That madman was not forthcoming at all. The blame for the misery of the Iraqi people and the deaths of our soldiers falls squarely on the shoulders of that maniacal dictator and all his henchmen.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Americans want to accept no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. I mean people want to sue McDonalds because they made the choice to eat there, never exercise, and now they are fat. I mean come on.

Equating McDonalds lawsuits with abortions and birth control. Only on the Ledge. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
All the same things were said about Reagan. And we did ok.


Another conservative talking about how great Reagan was when he didn't do much of anything. The Cold War? Nothing; the Soviet Union imploded. The economy? It perked up alright, but only after he tripled taxes. ;)

[jwd]

Sugar:


And this isn't even an abortion argument to me, believe it or not! Like I said I can't get to morality when I can't get past stupid. Your friend made the right choice (the "positive choice" as Lindsey would say ), but let there be no doubt in your mind that it was a CHOICE. There are a whole lot of OTHER choices for people in that situation, and people make them, and I know you know that.



I'd like to think that adoption would be one of those choices too. There are a lot of people who can't have kids that would love to adopt a child. We need more sex education in schools and at home from parents. Abortion on demand is a horrible thing imo.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Sugar
I can't really argue with any of that, to a point. Yes we don't like to take responsibility...yada yada yada. Contracaption is available...yada yada yada...all that is true. And I despise women who use abortion as birth control. BUT we're talking about a child here, and you and strand are focusing on the woman.

So this asshole slut of a woman finds herself pregnant, admittedly because she was an asshole (obviously this isn't always the case, but I think these are the people we're really talking about here). So she needs to "pay" for her mistake; she needs to "deal with the results." So you want this asshole slut to raise a child?!?! Or worse, not?!?!

So this child is born. What do you think happens? She cloisters herself in a burka and says, "I need to deal with this because this is of my own doing"? This child grows up in questionable surroundings, perhaps on the welfare rolls, perhaps getting shuffled from home to home, perhaps because mom NEVER DID take responsibility for this child. What are the chances of this producing an upstanding member of society? When this child mugs you or breaks into your house, you tell me then that this woman got what was coming to her.

That, IMO, is why a statement like this is short-sighted and dumb.

I'm guessing you and strand don't have children...:cool:

ITA - and it's these people who are against abortion who bitch and moan about their tax money going to welfare mothers who have to raise these kids under ****ty circumstances. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
We need more sex education in schools and at home from parents.

Exactly. I...agree! :eek: :laugh: :wavey:

BUT - abstinence is *not* sexual education and shouldn't be pushed as much as it is in certain schools. It's simply unrealistic. Classes on not having sex are not going to stop a kid form having sex if they want to. And, this is just opinion, but I think that those classes also have a negative effect on kids. The way some of these teachers talk about sex, it scares these kids and some of them begin to think negatively of sex. That's just not healthy. So, I say pass out the condoms and diaphragms and jellies, they are more useful than not being handed out. Why tell them not to have sex and not hand out these things, when they'll just turn around and have sex without the aid of them?

[Sugar]

Originally posted by jwd
I'd like to think that adoption would be one of those choices too. There are a lot of people who can't have kids that would love to adopt a child. We need more sex education in schools and at home from parents. Abortion on demand is a horrible thing imo.

Yes, adoption would be a positive choice, but I haven't seen much of that. I've seen much more of these cobbled together low income family unit-type things after one or both birth parents leave the scene. Yes we need more sex ed, and we need to, as a society, lessen our facination with sex. I won't go so far as to say abortion on demand is a horrible thing, but abortion as birth control is a horrible thing.

I would also like to take this moment (now that we're here :laugh: ) to say that (I believe) those of us who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. The one thing I think we can all agree on is that we would like to see the day when abortions are, not illegal, but largely unnecessary.

[jwd]

dissention:

Exactly. I...agree!

BUT - abstinence is *not* sexual education and shouldn't be pushed as much as it is in certain schools. It's simply unrealistic. Classes on not having sex are not going to stop a kid form having sex if they want to. And, this is just opinion, but I think that those classes also have a negative effect on kids. The way some of these teachers talk about sex, it scares these kids and some of them begin to think negatively of sex. That's just not healthy. So, I say pass out the condoms and diaphragms and jellies, they are more useful than not being handed out. Why tell them not to have sex and not hand out these things, when they'll just turn around and have sex without the aid of them?


The first line...I never thought I'd see it! :laugh:

I agree abstinence is not sex education, but it should be taught as an option. It is the only sure way to avoid stds and unwanted pregnancies. Kids need to be made aware that sex is not necessarily bad, but an important and natural part of our existence. I agree with most of your post with the exception of schools handing out the condoms, jellies, and diaphragms. That should be up to the parents imo.


:wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
The first line...I never thought I'd see it! :laugh:

There's a first for everything. :nod: :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Another conservative talking about how great Reagan was when he didn't do much of anything. The Cold War? Nothing; the Soviet Union imploded. The economy? It perked up alright, but only after he tripled taxes. ;)

SPIN!!!! BS ALERT!!! :laugh:

Where did I say anything about how great Reagan was? All I said was that we did okay and he was blamed by the libs for everything under the sun, much like Bush is now.

BTW, there are many reasons why the Soviet Union fell, Reagan did play a part.

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Exactly. I...agree! :eek: :laugh: :wavey:

BUT - abstinence is *not* sexual education and shouldn't be pushed as much as it is in certain schools. It's simply unrealistic. Classes on not having sex are not going to stop a kid form having sex if they want to. And, this is just opinion, but I think that those classes also have a negative effect on kids. The way some of these teachers talk about sex, it scares these kids and some of them begin to think negatively of sex. That's just not healthy. So, I say pass out the condoms and diaphragms and jellies, they are more useful than not being handed out. Why tell them not to have sex and not hand out these things, when they'll just turn around and have sex without the aid of them?

Now that's just silly...That's like having a parent let their kids drink and do drugs at home. If I had a teen who came home from HS with birth control passed out at the school I would be furious...so would most decent parents. It should be more about education...period. And it isn't unrealistic to think that people can't be responsible, even teenagers. If I can do it then anyone can!

It all boils down to parenting. That's pretty much it... THe people I know who are well adjusted and make good decisions now were usually raised by good parents. The ones with little or poor parenting end up being poor parents and people themselves!

Again...I think people planning on having kids should have to pass some sort of phsycological test. And I stand by my theory that some people need to be "fixed"!!:laugh:

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
Who on the face of the planet didn't believe that Saddam had WMD? If he didn't have them, why didn't he prove it. Does anyone honestly think that his intentions were good?! That madman was not forthcoming at all. The blame for the misery of the Iraqi people and the deaths of our soldiers falls squarely on the shoulders of that maniacal dictator and all his henchmen.

I agree everyone thought SH had them. My prob is not with that. My prob is with W knowingly lying about the trumped up Niger nuclear cake sale. W and his admin knew this info was false. Yet, they stated it in the SOTU speech to incite more fear and to sell the war they could not previously sell because without this part, there was no immediate danger to America. W's admin. also knowingly equated and linked SH to OBL which they knew was just dead wrong. They did it to justify their war. Those are the thing I find repugnant and unforgiveable. As for the invasion of Iraq, I think we were justified without all of W's lies for the reasons you state. But, I cannot forgive the lies because if he did it once, he'll do it again.

My$0.02

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Sugar
Yes, adoption would be a positive choice, but I haven't seen much of that. I've seen much more of these cobbled together low income family unit-type things after one or both birth parents leave the scene. Yes we need more sex ed, and we need to, as a society, lessen our facination with sex. I won't go so far as to say abortion on demand is a horrible thing, but abortion as birth control is a horrible thing.

I would also like to take this moment (now that we're here :laugh: ) to say that (I believe) those of us who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. The one thing I think we can all agree on is that we would like to see the day when abortions are, not illegal, but largely unnecessary.

You are right...the problem with abortion is that it doesn't address the root of the problem...it's just a band aid.

And my whole argument of accountability isn't just directed at "stupid" women who get pregnant. It takes two to tango and guys should be held up to their 50% responsibility. I also think parents of teenagers or even grandparents should be held accountable if their kid gets pregnant.

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree everyone thought SH had them.

:confused: Not me!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:confused: Not me!

Bless your heart!!!! :cool:

:wavey: :wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Now that's just silly...That's like having a parent let their kids drink and do drugs at home. If I had a teen who came home from HS with birth control passed out at the school I would be furious...so would most decent parents. It should be more about education...period. And it isn't unrealistic to think that people can't be responsible, even teenagers. If I can do it then anyone can!

It all boils down to parenting. That's pretty much it... THe people I know who are well adjusted and make good decisions now were usually raised by good parents. The ones with little or poor parenting end up being poor parents and people themselves!


Nothing like good generalizations to smooth out the discussion. ;)

If a good parent does not want their kid to have birth control available to them, they just aren't a good parent in my eyes. The next step will be outlawing the sale of birth control to people under 18 and then we'll have an epidemic of child birth that's even worse than it is now.

And it is realistic to think that the majority of teenagers can be responsible. That's why they're called teenagers and not adults. You yourself said that four girls in your senior class had abortions and if you're appalled by that, check out the national statistics. So, how do we remedy the problem? Not by stressing sex ed or abstinence and then not giving the kids an outlet where they can get safe sex products. I bet you if brith control products were available to those girls in your class, only one or two of them would've gotten pregnant.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Bless your heart!!!! :cool:

:wavey: :wavey:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You know I'm a whack job.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree everyone thought SH had them. My prob is not with that. My prob is with W knowingly lying about the trumped up Niger nuclear cake sale. W and his admin knew this info was false. Yet, they stated it in the SOTU speech to incite more fear and to sell the war they could not previously sell because without this part, there was no immediate danger to America. W's admin. also knowingly equated and linked SH to OBL which they knew was just dead wrong. They did it to justify their war. Those are the thing I find repugnant and unforgiveable. As for the invasion of Iraq, I think we were justified without all of W's lies for the reasons you state. But, I cannot forgive the lies because if he did it once, he'll do it again.

My$0.02

Let's not forget that Colin Powell has now also admitted the biological weapons mobile units were complete b.s. "The intelligence was bad." Yeah right. They all need to be tried for this.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Let's not forget that Colin Powell has now also admitted the biological weapons mobile units were complete b.s. "The intelligence was bad." Yeah right. They all need to be tried for this.

Yeah, tried, found guilty, and forced to wear scarlett letters on their chests for their remaining years in a ****ty prison with regular shower breaks and slippery soap. ;) :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Another conservative talking about how great Reagan was when he didn't do much of anything. The Cold War? Nothing; the Soviet Union imploded. The economy? It perked up alright, but only after he tripled taxes. ;)

I think it's even up for debate who was actually running the country after the assasination attempt.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Nothing like good generalizations to smooth out the discussion. ;)

If a good parent does not want their kid to have birth control available to them, they just aren't a good parent in my eyes. The next step will be outlawing the sale of birth control to people under 18 and then we'll have an epidemic of child birth that's even worse than it is now.

And it is realistic to think that the majority of teenagers can be responsible. That's why they're called teenagers and not adults. You yourself said that four girls in your senior class had abortions and if you're appalled by that, check out the national statistics. So, how do we remedy the problem? Not by stressing sex ed or abstinence and then not giving the kids an outlet where they can get safe sex products. I bet you if brith control products were available to those girls in your class, only one or two of them would've gotten pregnant.

I disagree...a good parent would raise their kids to make smarter decisions. And, regarding the girls in my HS...BC was readily available to those who chose to use it. I know too many people that hated using rubbers and other methods...the problem wasn't their availability. Some people just don't make smart decisions in the "heat of the moment".

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I disagree...a good parent would raise their kids to make smarter decisions. And, regarding the girls in my HS...BC was readily available to those who chose to use it. I know too many people that hated using rubbers and other methods...the problem wasn't their availability. Some people just don't make smart decisions in the "heat of the moment".

Rob:cool:

You mean the smart decision that parents should teach their children to make? Sorry, but you can't just brush sexuality under the rug by saying "wait until marriage" or some such ****. Yeah, it's a good ideal, but it's unrealistic. I firmly believe that a parent should be open and honest about sexuality. Yes, teach them not to have sex, but at the same time, you have to raise them with the understanding that if they have sex behind your back, they need to use birth control to stay safe. Why not teach both things? Put the emphasis on not having sex, but always back it up with safe sex if they choose to make the wrong decision and have sex and have the contraceptives available to them in some way.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
You mean the smart decision that parents should teach their children to make? Sorry, but you can't just brush sexuality under the rug by saying "wait until marriage" or some such ****. Yeah, it's a good ideal, but it's unrealistic. I firmly believe that a parent should be open and honest about sexuality. Yes, teach them not to have sex, but at the same time, you have to raise them with the understanding that if they have sex behind your back, they need to use birth control to stay safe. Why not teach both things? Put the emphasis on not having sex, but always back it up with safe sex if they choose to make the wrong decision and have sex and have the contraceptives available to them in some way.

Yeah, I follow you, and I understand the argument. I just don't abide by that thought process. I mean, why not just hand your kids a joint and a six-pack while you're at it...hell, they're gonna do it anyway!

My mother never handed out BC to my brother, sister or I because she knew we would make smart decisions. She knew things went on but wasn't going to encourage them by providing us with the means!

Different strokes...I guess.

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I mean, why not just hand your kids a joint and a six-pack while you're at it...hell, they're gonna do it anyway!

Because I'm not going to break the law by contributing to the deliquency of a minor. ;) And last time I checked, sex wasn't an illegal act. Except for the good kind, in some states. :laugh: If I found out my kids had ever done drugs or drank alcohol, I'd tan their hides. :nod: I would raise my kids to not use those substances; I think alcohol should be just as illegal as weed, but that's just me.

I wasn't raised to look down upon sex; it's a natural thing. But drinking and drugging? I want no part of that. None at all. I don't even ingest caffeine, for cripes sake. :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Because I'm not going to break the law by contributing to the deliquency of a minor. ;) And last time I checked, sex wasn't an illegal act. Except for the good kind, in some states. :laugh: If I found out my kids had ever done drugs or drank alcohol, I'd tan their hides. :nod: I would raise my kids to not use those substances; I think alcohol should be just as illegal as weed, but that's just me.

I wasn't raised to look down upon sex; it's a natural thing. But drinking and drugging? I want no part of that. None at all. I don't even ingest caffeine, for cripes sake. :laugh:

I don't look down on it either, and that really isn't my point (morally speaking). That doesn't mean I think 16 year olds are mature enough to handle the consequenses of sexual activity. Pregnancy and VD's are pretty serious things to deal with so while I think sex is great, I would stress to kids that it is best in the context of a loving relationship and can have serious consequences, as dangerous and life altering as drugs and alcohol. Because of this, it should be treated the same, IMO.

Besides, sex CAN kill you and weed can't...but that's another story.;) :D

Rob:cool: