A post from "Jesusland"

[Johnny Stew]

Have you read some of the old posts from conservatives on this board who don't want gay marriage or gay people? Some of the ones posted back when The Passion came out were vile.

I haven't forgotten the comments from a few people, that's for sure. In that thread and elsewhere.
And I still shake my head at the mother of all short-sighted comments... "I'm not gay, so why should I care?"

But I think there are other conservatives on this board... including Nancy, Joe (JWD), and, it seems, Jamie... who DON'T have a negative view of gays and gay rights.

I consider them to be intelligent, thoughtful people, who have some opinions that are far more progressive than those of the politicians that represent them.

My thing is, I care about other people's rights... even if they're not rights that effect me in any way (such as a woman's right to vote)... and I'd be livid if someone was working to limit the rights of my friends.
So hopefully I can help my straight conservative friends see why it's so important to me that gays & lesbians have the same rights afforded straight domestic partnerships/civil unions. Why it should never again happen that a man can't visit his mate of 25 years on his deathbed, just because he's not "family," and why it should never happen again that two people in a loving, committed relationship can't adopt a child together, and that no one should ever again be beaten and terrorized for being gay and then told by the courts that violence against someone for their sexual orientation is not considered a "hate crime" in their state.

As Dale Carnegie said, I'm looking to "win friends and influence people"... not make more enemies. I have enough of the latter just by being who I am.

[sodascouts]

Well, they were fleeing primarily from the Catholics :laugh:


Actually, they were fleeing from fellow Protestants - Anglicans, although admittedly the Puritan's main problem with Anglicanism was that it was Catholicism without Pope. Despite this Puritans were not exactly tolerant folks - fleeing religious prosecution didn't stop them from committing it once they landed in America. So I think it's a mistake to refer to them as precursors for the practice of religious freedom.

[sodascouts]

You've failed to post anything that supported your opinions with facts, Nancy. :shrug: I've told you again and again that you take these discussions too personally, but at the same time, you invite it when you only post your opinions and have them shot down almost immediately because the facts don't necessarily back up your opinions. Just like when you posted about Pell Grants. Like I said earlier in this thread, I respect the rights of people to have their beliefs, but that doesn't mean I respect the belief itself, especially if it's based on a false premise and unsupported by facts.

JMO.

I have posted facts - it's a misrepresentation to pretend like I never - or "almost always" have my facts wrong. The few times I have had my facts wrong I've retracted my statements. I have no wish to base arguments on false premises or facts.

[takenbythesky]

Sorry to bring this up but several people have been telling me that they are having trouble accessing THE PENGUIN Website as of late even from such sites as THE NICKS FIX & Other FM/Stevie Sites... Is this a technical problem or are the rumours true that a massive flame war erupted between the Pro-Bush & Anti-Bush Ledge Folks that Marty shut down the board and is now seriously considering dropping it all together ? If Bob or someone else could clarify, We'd appreciate it...Thank You !

"And rumours are flying."

-Justin

[gldstwmn]

"And rumours are flying."

-Justin

From Arizona Ranger no less.

"Please allow me to intorduce myself..."

[sodascouts]

From the article you posted:

"In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away."

For some reason, I don't think it would have been as "extraordinarily difficult" to get Bin Laden after 9/11 when the military operations were high-risk, on the ground already, and he was cornered in Tora Bora.

As I said, I don't blame Clinton for missing out on getting Osama, and I realize that it wouldn't have been an easy task to do so. That wasn't my point. My point was more could've been done by both sides. The article does indeed prove that more could have been done, although as you correctly pointed out, with difficulty. For instance, have you heard about this missed opportunity? My facts were straight. Clinton could have done more.
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm But again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure if Clinton had had any inkling of what was to come he would have done something about it. I also believe this about Bush.

I've posted a million quotes that prove otherwise if you want to find them, Nancy. He once claimed that Al Qaeda was Saddam's army.

In the quote I posted, he explicitly says there is a difference. Did he ever explicitly say Saddam was behind 911 in one of the quotes you've posted? If so, I will take back my assertion.


Wrong. Read your source again:

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

By all accounts, the weapons were destroyed right after the Gulf War and before '94.

When the UN gave more power and authority to the inspectors in October of 2002, Saddam complied completely up until Bush declared war. :shrug:

Hans Blix: "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

Hans Blix also said that Saddam's cooperation was "unprecendeted" if you want me to post that quote for you. Articles that support the fact that Saddam cooperated fully up until war was declared:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2967598.stm
Blix criticises coalition over Iraq weapons

It's no secret what Blix thinks of Bush, and while I'm sure he believes what he's saying, his own former boss called him "easily fooled" http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=232900&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


Not to mention the fact the the US removed 8,000 pages from the 12,000 page weapons report that Saddam submitted. You can also peruse these sites and read all about how UNMOVIC and IAEA never found a thing in 11 years.


But even Clinton believed Iraq had WMDs, didn't he? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/09/1073437458359.html

Regarding the next quotes, it's indisputable that the rest of the world hoped inspections would do the trick and wanted Bush to be more unilateral. That being said, there were some interesting statements in the quotes you posted that actually support why we had reason to suspect Saddam and that the "unprecedented" compliance wasn't all that hot:


Chile

MARIA SOLEDAD ALVEAR, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile, said that what she heard this morning showed that the Iraqi regime still had an ambivalent attitude towards the inspection process. While there were indications of progress that might indicate a decisive change in attitude towards compliance with the demands of the international community, the negative and delaying attitudes revealed an intention not to cooperate and gave rise to suspicions about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..

I actually thinks this works towards my point of our reasons to be suspicous of Saddam than yours, although the rest of the article does express a desire for unilateralism that Bush didn't go along with.


Spain

ANA PALACIO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain, said that as much as she had been eager to hear an affirmation of active, immediate and complete compliance with the Council’s demands by Iraq, she had been unable to find it in the inspectors’ reports. Unconditional cooperation was not forthcoming. What the Council saw was a long list of unresolved issues mentioned in Mr. Blix’s report, including VX agent, chemical bombs and anthrax. Al-Samoud missiles were longer in range than that prescribed by the Council. The Council had been also told that Iraq could produce engines for those missiles. A number of persons had refused to be interviewed privately. In a word, all the questions remained, including the most important one: was Iraq’s cooperation voluntary, or did it represent superficial concessions because time was pressing? Was it a result of international pressure, including a credible threat of the use of force?

Her remarks should be seen in the right context, she explained. Her Government appreciated the inspectors’ work and was in favour of a solution being found within the Council. Spain was aware that peace and security were assured through respect for and compliance with the Council’s resolutions. Unless there was a change of will on behalf of Saddam Hussein, the Council should discharge its responsibilities for peace and security.

Again, this goes towards my point of why Saddam was untrustworthy.

United Kingdom

JACK STRAW, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, said that the issue was about the authority of the Council and the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. Three months ago, the Council adopted resolution 1441. At that time, everyone, including all five permanent members, knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They knew that the issue was not whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but whether it was cooperating to get rid of them.

As stated on 27 January, Iraq had failed to account for various materials and weapons, failed to make a full and complete disclosure, failed to cooperate fully and failed to meet the obligations imposed on them.

He hoped and believed that a peaceful solution was still possible, but it would require Iraq to meet the obligations imposed on it. A peaceful solution could only be achieved if the Council held its nerve, gave meaning to its word and ensured that Iraq would face the consequences of its actions. The 12 years since the adoption of resolution 687 (1991) had been a period of humiliation, as games had been played with the Council’s authority. The period after the inspectors were kicked out until 8 November was not the best in the Council’s history, since Iraq was in open defiance of the Council’s authority.

Obviously, the last 11 years has not been problem-free.

United States

COLIN POWELL, Secretary of State of the United States, said that the inspectors had taken up a difficult task when whey they returned to Iraq last fall. He was pleased about the improvements with respect to process, but the inspectors still did not have freedom of access around Iraq to do their job well. People had come forward for interviews, but more should be doing so, in a manner that their safety and that of their families could be protected. Decrees that should have been issued years and years ago had been issued this morning. But, did anyone think that a decree from Saddam would change the situation? Those were all tricks that were being played.

Now, he continued, new commissions were being formed to find materials the Iraqis say were not there in the first place. Did anyone believe they could succeed in finding material that was actively being denied? He commended the work of the inspectors, but what was needed was not more inspectors or more immediate access, but immediate, active, unconditional cooperation on the part of Iraq. Resolution 1441 was not about inspections; it was about the disarmament of Iraq. And it began with a clear statement that Iraq was in a material breach of its obligations. It went on to say that there should be a declaration within 30 days of all its activities –- “put it all on the table” was the request.

He said he could not continue to allow Iraq to possess weapons of mass destruction to use against its neighbours and others, or to provide to terrorist organizations. Such connections were now emerging and he could establish that they existed. The world could not wait until one of those terrible weapons showed up in one of its cities. That was what 1441 was all about. To this day, he had not seen the level of cooperation that was expected, indeed, hoped for. No one had worked harder than he had to put forward a resolution of the international community to show the Iraqi leadership that “the time was now to come clean and comply”.

More inspections was not the answer. He had not seen responsible actions on the part of Iraq, but rather “continued efforts to deceive, deny, divert, and throw us off the path”. The resolution had anticipated that kind of response. Notwithstanding improvements in process, those did not move the situation away from the central problem, namely, Iraq’s failure to comply with 1441, and more inspections or a longer inspection period would not move us away from that central problem. The threat of force must remain. It should always be a last resort, but it must be a resort. “We cannot allow this process to be endlessly strung out, as Iraq was trying to do”, he said.

The Security Council was now in a situation where Iraq’s continued non-compliance and failure to cooperate required it to begin to think through the consequences of walking away from that problem, or from the reality that it had to be faced. And, in the very near future, the Council would have to consider that point, as reluctant as it might be. So many here would rather not face the issue, but that issue, namely whether it was time to consider the serious consequences referred to in 1441, had to be faced. Those were serious weapons that could kill tens of thousands of people if they got into the wrong hands. “Our security rested upon us meeting our responsibilities and, if it came to it, invoking the serious consequences named in 1441”, he stressed.

No explanation needed.



Mexico

LUIS ERNESTO DERBEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said that in the reports presented today he saw a degree of improvement in the working conditions of the inspectors. In the past couple of weeks, Iraq had changed its position regarding overflights and interviews and provided further documentation. While the report had indicated some improvement, it was also clear that the Iraqi Government continued to evade its international responsibilities. It had yet to respond to repeated appeals by the international community, under resolution 1441, that it cooperate unconditionally with inspectors.

The international community, he said, was calling for genuine and verifiable disarmament. It wanted to know when and how Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. It had been proven that, in the last two wars in which Iraq participated, it had used such weapons. Now, the international community wanted to know where those arsenals were, and if they had been destroyed. The international community was increasingly divided as to the most effective way to achieve the goal of Iraq’s disarmament. The unity of the Council was crucial.

Obviously, again, there is the assesment that Saddam indeed has WMDs.

Guinea

MAMADY TRAORE (Guinea) said that progress had indeed been made since the last progress report in late January, but many issues were still pending. The progress had included the fact that inspectors had been able to interview five Iraqi scientists without minders. Restrictions on flights by U-2 aircraft had been lifted, and a decree banning weapons of mass destruction had just been approved. Those developments were acts of cooperation on the part of Iraq, but the discoveries of large quantities of mustard gas, defended as destroyed, the development of a missile programme beyond the proscribed range, and omissions in the declaration had sown doubts about the sincerity and good faith of the Iraqi authorities to resolve the crisis peacefully.

He said he advocated continued inspections, although not indefinitely. A reasonable additional time period would help yield consensus and bring together the different views around the table. He was concerned about the tension in the international community around the crisis. He urged a direct and constructive dialogue among those with differing views, in order to move beyond that tension, which could deal a harsh blow to the United Nations system. Given Iraq’s obligation to cooperate actively and strictly in accordance with the Council’s resolutions, it must end its delaying tactics. A peaceful settlement of the crisis depended on it. He assured the inspection teams of his full support and urged them to explore all possibilities. The Council must continue working together as one to attain its goal.

Was the discovery of the mustard gas over 11 years ago?

Cameroon

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon) said that in comparing today’s reports with that of 27 January, he could see significant developments resulting from the wise and reasonable choice of the Iraqi authorities to begin, at last, to cooperate with inspectors. He noted the important advances regarding interviews and U-2 air surveillance. He also welcomed that Iraq had enacted legislation prohibiting illicit chemical, biological and nuclear activities in its territory. Despite that, certain questions regarding chemical and biological issues still remained. On the issue of missiles, he noted from today’s reports that the range of the Al-Samoud missile manufactured by Iraq was beyond the range authorized by the Council. That was regrettable, since it contradicted the Iraqi declaration of 2002.

It was up to the Council to decide how to deal with that non-compliance, he said. During the ministerial meeting on 5 February, the United States delegation had raised the issue of small unmanned planes, which could be used as delivery systems for weapons and other unresolved issues. He asked what information had been provided by Iraq on that issue. The documentation submitted by Iraq last week could contain clarifications on the main issues before the Council. He hoped that, if it was not possible to obtain copy of those documents, Dr. Blix would be able to provide a summary in writing, accompanied by comments and assessment.

He emphasized the need for the Council to continue to safeguard its unity and cohesion. The progress made by the recent mission to Baghdad reflected a noticeable change in Iraqi attitude. That result, like the return of inspectors, was owed to the great demands of President Bush, to the collective pressure exerted by the Council, and the staunch determination of a united Council. The cacophony and confusion surrounding the Council could only harm its effectiveness. Cameroon was studying the non-paper from France, while awaiting the opinions of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. He wanted to know what the key threshold in the number of inspectors was to conduct robust inspections, and what its cost might be.

Further non-compliance with the demands of the Council would be one violation too many, and Iraqi authorities would leave the Council no other choice but to adopt, in unity, appropriate measures to have its decisions respected. He appealed to Council members for unity and cohesion at this crucial stage. The credibility of the Council and the United Nations could suffer if, in the future, that unity could not be preserved.

So there were compliance issues.

Bulgaria

STEFAN TAFROV (Bulgaria) stressed the importance of pursuing unity in addressing the issue of Iraq, saying that he greatly appreciated the important work by UNMOVIC and the IAEA there. The experience of the last 12 years showed that inspections depended on cooperation from Iraq to be successful. Baghdad tended to provide such cooperation only under serious pressure. The work of the United Nations was still the main factor in ensuring that country’s cooperation with the inspectors.

Unfortunately, Iraq was still in material breach with resolution 1441, he continued. It was up to Iraq –- not the inspectors -– to achieve disarmament. It was essential that Iraq cooperated actively and unconditionally. Iraq must prove that it had no weapons of mass destruction and give clear and definitive answers to the remaining questions by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, as well as the issues presented by Secretary Powell last week. The most serious issues concerned the chemical and biological weapons.

His country had always advocated maximally effective inspections, and the French ideas regarding enhanced inspections could be one element in the overall strategy by the Council to achieve the disarmament of Iraq. Bulgaria remained in favour of a peaceful settlement, but active cooperation by Iraq was indispensable. All kinds of pressure, political and military, should be exerted on Iraq, in order to achieve the goals set by the international community. A peaceful solution was still possible, if Iraq wilfully disarmed, as required by resolution 1441. All responsibility for any undesirable outcome would lie squarely with Iraq. Bulgaria appealed to the Council to be united. That was an important condition for a peaceful outcome of the crisis.

So, Iraq has proven again and again its untrustworthiness. And his degree of compliance is not so rosy.


Yeah, but war isn't murder, Nancy. :rolleyes: Are you using this as a justification for war?

You don't think war is ever justifed? Do you consider it murder? Or is just this war murder, because you feel it's unjust? Or is this just an academic point based on my reply to a direct question as to whether war is murder?

[sodascouts]

Nancy I do not believe I said you shouldn't respond to accusatory posts...however this thread WAS started by a Republican..

If we had won, and Republicans right now were still hollering, I would say to them "ahhh whatever, we won, too late."

The point is...I cannot believe in this country we live in Republicans feel the slighest bit badgered. After all you guys did win an election by scaring people into voting for your guy..PERIOD.

Chris

In the case of this thread, it was indeed started by a Republican. But I still maintain Jamie has a right to post her observations of behavior on the Ledge and comment on something that bothers her even if her candidate won.

Your respose of "whatever, we won" is an interesting one, although if Jamie said it she'd probably be accused of gloating! (BTW, let me commend Republican Ledgies for refraining from gloating.) But I totally understand where Jamie's coming from because I've seen the same things. That being said, I don't feel unwelcome here on the Ledge - just in political threads, lol. This one has actually been better than I expected, and it's encouraged me to keep responding.



I wasn't scared into voting for Bush, BTW.

[sodascouts]

Diss, people believe this. My roommate saw on a CNN "ticker" something like "Osama will not strike any state that votes for Kerry". I did not see it, I don't know what the context of it was but this is how she relayed it to me. Then she said, "That speaks volumes." I don't know how she lived through that. I wanted to tell her that I was sure she read it out of context and I'm quite sure it is not true. Honestly I didn't even begin because I have to live with her! I do not understand. :confused: :shrug: :confused:

In case you're curious, this is what your friend was referring to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html

He never actually endorses Kerry explicitly. Instead he bashes Bush (no suprise) and at the end threatens that those states who don't heed his words (which were again all anti-Bush) invite attacks (the distinction of "states" is what clearly indicates he's referring to election results). Again, this is only pro-Kerry in that it is anti-Bush, but you can see the implication of his statements.

[strandinthewind]

Actually, they were fleeing from fellow Protestants - Anglicans, although admittedly the Puritan's main problem with Anglicanism was that it was Catholicism without Pope. Despite this Puritans were not exactly tolerant folks - fleeing religious prosecution didn't stop them from committing it once they landed in America. So I think it's a mistake to refer to them as precursors for the practice of religious freedom.

Touche' - but I was referring to the reason for the Protestants forming, which was the tyranny of the Catholic Church. And certainly at least in England, Queen Mary a/k/a Bloddy Mary was fereting out the Protestants in the name of the Catholic Church :shrug: But, yes, certainly the Protestants fought amongst each other and with the Church of England :cool:

See common ground again :wavey: :wavey:

[sodascouts]

But I think there are other conservatives on this board... including Nancy, Joe (JWD), and, it seems, Jamie... who DON'T have a negative view of gays and gay rights.

I consider them to be intelligent, thoughtful people, who have some opinions that are far more progressive than those of the politicians that represent them.


I appreciate the nice words, Johnny. I admit I do worry about losing friends because of my political beliefs, so I'm glad that's not the case.

[sodascouts]

Touche' - but I was referring to the reason for the Protestants forming, which was the tyranny of the Catholic Church. And certainly at least in England, Queen Mary a/k/a Bloddy Mary was fereting out the Protestants in the name of the Catholic Church :shrug: But, yes, certainly the Protestants fought amongst each other and with the Church of England :cool:

See common ground again :wavey: :wavey:

It's very fascinating, what was happening around that time. After Mary, you have Elizabeth and the return to Protestantism. It wasn't until decades later that you have the Puritan separation to New England, but again many of the resentments against the Church of England by Puritans stem from their similarities to Catholicism, so you're right in that anti-Catholic sentiment comes into play.

[strandinthewind]

. . . You don't think war is ever justifed?

I know it was not directed at me, BUT :laugh: :wavey: - I have said repeatedly that W had a valid ground to stand on for making SH comply. My problem is that W lied about the nuke stuff to sell the war. His administration knew that was incorrect. I mean there is a reason why W could not wait for two or three more months for the inspections to complete. I mean where is the logic in the exigency - I just do not see it.

PLUS - W's ignoring of the warnings of the insufficient number of troops, his brash go it alone attitude, the failure to provide out troops with the correct armor (again in this inexplicable rush to war), and the subsequent disorder in Iraq - are unforgiveable - at least to me. But, others disagree - why I will never understand :cool:

[strandinthewind]

I appreciate the nice words, Johnny. I admit I do worry about losing friends because of my political beliefs, so I'm glad that's not the case.

You need never worry about that with me!!!! :wavey:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Politics are very divisive. I saw a couple on CNN before the election in one of their specials.. They ended up splitting up because of how active he got in his anti-mexican or anti-illegal immigration protests and all...he was married to a LEGAL immigrant from China or something...and they ended up splitting up over their political differences

Chris

[sodascouts]

You need never worry about that with me!!!! :wavey:

Thank you! I feel all warm and fuzzy now, lol. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Thank you! I feel all warm and fuzzy now, lol. :xoxo:


CUMBAYA MY LORD CUMBAYA {{{HUGS}}}

:cool:

[amber]

I appreciate the nice words, Johnny. I admit I do worry about losing friends because of my political beliefs, so I'm glad that's not the case.
No Way! After all, you are funny...(Amber's main personality criteria :D )

[Vianna]

"Apparently, you're part of a dwindling minority. The typical evangelical Christian forcefeeds his faith, his politics & his values down everyone else's throat. All of us nonbelievers have directly experienced this -- too many times to count. To quote the great Anna Russell, we're NOT making this up, you know!

If the evangelicals could arrange it, TV programming would consist of nothing but shows like "Touched By An Angel." What a bland world it would be, indeed. I lob broadsides at the Bible Brigade -- the Basic Minimum Christianists of various stripes -- whenever I can, & I offer no apologies for it. As a group, they are the most meddlesome, fatuous, misinformed, self-righteously bellicose & plangently irritating of any I have ever encountered in my years of existence.

The drama critic John Simon summed it up best in an interview with Jon Winokur for his book "The Portable Curmudgeon" when asked about twice-born Christians: "It seems to me that on the whole, one birth per person is enough, & for some even that may be too much.""

David, you are right on target!

[Vianna]

As for any post from Arizona Ranger, consider the source :laugh:

[dissention]

"And rumours are flying."

-Justin

UGH. UGH. UGH.

I knew Kurdyla was still sliming his way around, but I never thought I'd see another word from his sorry ass on this board. :laugh:

[dissention]

You don't think war is ever justifed? Do you consider it murder? Or is just this war murder, because you feel it's unjust? Or is this just an academic point based on my reply to a direct question as to whether war is murder?

I'm not going to get into the rest with you because we'll just continue to duke it out, but every war is murder. Sorry, but I'm not okay with calling an innocent victim of war a "casualty." That's sickening. Unjust wars are even worse in my book. If you think this current war that our country is engaged in is "just," I have to seriously question your judgement and sense of respect for the human race. Like I said previously, let's send you over to the front lines and see what you have to say if you return.

[strandinthewind]

I'm not going to get into the rest with you because we'll just continue to duke it out, but every war is murder. Sorry, but I'm not okay with calling an innocent victim of war a "casualty." That's sickening. Unjust wars are even worse in my book. If you think this current war that our country is engaged in is "just," I have to seriously question your judgement and sense of respect for the human race. Like I said previously, let's send you over to the front lines and see what you have to say if you return.


I tend to agree. I mean when it comes to someone like Hitler or OBL, then war perhaps is more just because these were and are horrible people. But, even in those cases, if preventative action had been taken, whatever that might be, then perhaps those situations could have been avoided :shrug: In Hitler's case, if Europe and the U.S. perhaps had not made the WWI war reparations so onerous on Germany that they drove Germany into a hyper-inflation depression so great that the Germans were so poor and starving that even someone like Hitler seemed good to them - maybe Hitler would never have risen to power - thus, perhaps no WWII. I know that is a simplistic explanation of the complex state of Europe in that time, but I think it, even that simplistic form, serves to illustrate my point, which is an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure :shrug:

Fast forward to the last 20 years. If we (by we I mean Rumsfeld acting on behalf of America) had not been so blind in our hatred for Iran that we essentially chomped at the bit to put SH in power and arm him/Iraq in the 80's to do out dirty work to Iran, it is possible that this war would never have happened. So, while I readily admit that region of the world is seemingly just prone to violence, an ounce of prevention or at least a little forethought before acting in blind rage, might have helped prevent this current autrocity.

Anyway - food for thought!!! :cool:

[dissention]

Fast forward to the last 20 years. If we (by we I mean Rumsfeld acting on behalf of America) had not been so blind in our hatred for Iran that we essentially chomped at the bit to put SH in power and arm him/Iraq in the 80's to do out dirty work to Iran, it is possible that this war would never have happened. So, while I readily admit that region of the world is seemingly just prone to violence, an ounce of prevention or at least a little forethought before acting in blind rage, might have helped prevent this current autrocity.

Common sense tells you that you don't give WMDs to a man like Saddam Hussein. But we did. So, like it or not, we're pretty responsible for this mess regardless.

I just cannot wrap my head around the thought that people don't consider war to be murder. Calling a victim a "casualty" is so cold and dehumanizing. The mothers of soldiers killed probably would not liek their son or daughter to be referred to as a "casualty," why should an innocent Iraqi? Justifying the deaths of babies and their mothers cannot be done, especially when you consider that as hard as we might try, Iraq will not become a stable democracy. In the end, people justify killing thousands by comparing our "casualties" to Saddam's murders...and that is not only reprehensible, but irresponsible and an utter failure to respect the lives of others.

My personal favorite moment from Rumsfeld in the past two years was his press conference where he boasted about how "humane" our weapons are. That must be true human nature in action, eh?

[SuzeQuze]

It is murder, people are killed, no? On Air America I think it was Randi Rhodes who pointed out that if Saddam had WMDs we would have known it for sure because we have satellite surveillance and can see everything.

Common sense tells you that you don't give WMDs to a man like Saddam Hussein. But we did. So, like it or not, we're pretty responsible for this mess regardless.

I just cannot wrap my head around the thought that people don't consider war to be murder. Calling a victim a "casualty" is so cold and dehumanizing. The mothers of soldiers killed probably would not liek their son or daughter to be referred to as a "casualty," why should an innocent Iraqi? Justifying the deaths of babies and their mothers cannot be done, especially when you consider that as hard as we might try, Iraq will not become a stable democracy. In the end, people justify killing thousands by comparing our "casualties" to Saddam's murders...and that is not only reprehensible, but irresponsible and an utter failure to respect the lives of others.

My personal favorite moment from Rumsfeld in the past two years was his press conference where he boasted about how "humane" our weapons are. That must be true human nature in action, eh?

[SuzeQuze]

For those interested in the movement to keep the separation of church and state that is in the constitution, check out <a href="http://www.au.org">Americans United for the Separation of Church and State</a> :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

It is murder, people are killed, no? On Air America I think it was Randi Rhodes who pointed out that if Saddam had WMDs we would have known it for sure because we have satellite surveillance and can see everything.

Murder by its strict definition means:

the noun

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=murder&x=23&y=13

the verb

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive senses
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE <murders French> d : to defeat badly
intransitive senses : to commit murder
______________________________________________________-

Thus, murder requires mens rea which is malice aforethought, etc. All legal def. of murder require this as well. All war contemplates and indeed usually regrets the killing of innocent people as a consequence. Thus, aforethought is met. But, I submit outside of someone like Hitler who invaded counties to take them over (can we please NOT get into the W = Hitler argument again :eek: ) this is not done with the adequate legal malice to satisfy that burden from a legal standpoint. Whether in the abstract or non-legally speaking it does is a whole other ball of wax :cool:

[The Tower]

But, I submit outside of someone like Hitler who invaded counties to take them over (can we please NOT get into the W = Hitler argument again :eek: ) this is not done with the adequate legal malice to satisfy that burden from a legal standpoint.

Jason, you have this very odd habit of bringing up all these old unresolvable arguing points and then making the request that we not discuss them. Maybe this is just the lawyer in you trying to sneak in one last word.

Just me and my observation.

:xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Jason, you have this very odd habit of bringing up all these old unresolvable arguing points and then making the request that we not discuss them. Maybe this is just the lawyer in you trying to sneak in one last word.

Just me and my observation.

:xoxo:

It was not with malice aforethought :cool: I just thought someone would make the argument in response to the reasoning in my post that W's actions in Iraq were the same as Hitler's action in the 30's and 40's - and we would all get into that whole W = Hitler thing again. So, I was trying to head it off at the pass. That is all. Sorry if any offense :)

[The Tower]

It was not with malice aforethought :cool: I just thought someone would make the argument in response to the reasoning in my post that W's actions in Iraq were the same as Hitler's action in the 30's and 40's - and we would all get into that whole W = Hitler thing again. So, I was trying to head it off at the pass. That is all. Sorry if any offense :)

No offense at all. Just one of those cute little quirks!