A post from "Jesusland"

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Yes, Saddam is a horrible, evil man whose government tortured and killed tens of thousands.

However......

That is still not a reason for the US to unilaterally invade the sovereign nation that was Iraq. There are many, many, many governments on Earth today that are as bad as Saddam was if not worse. Myanmar, North Korea, the Sudan, Congo, Rwanda- not to mention Paraguay, Turkmenistan, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, etc., etc., etc.... When are we going to invade those countries and fix their problems? I can tell you when- never, because none of them have the world's second largest oil reserves and a dictator who tangled with Dubya's Poppy.

It's true there are many other problematic areas of the world, but just because we can't solve every problem in the world doesn't mean we can't take action when it's necessary. To say that one issue can't be addressed unless all problems are addressed would be paralyzing.

[JamieSPC]

Not Christians, Nancy... religious extremists.

Oh, right. I see so many who post here making that distinction. Once they're called on it, of course.

We're a minority here, but certainly not overall, no. And there's a reason for that. Can you really write off the majority of Americans who not only voted for a Republican President but increased their senate majority? It would be more profitable to examine yourselves and figure out how you lost them, than further alienate them with elitist attitudes, if you ever want to win a presidential election.

Extremists can't change, on either side. That's part of what makes them extremist. But what many Democrats (and the media, for that matter) can't accept is that extremists did not elect W. The numbers don't bear that out. And on issues like gay marriage (to me, the most confounding issue of the election because Kerry's diehard supporters wanted to make it a reason to vote for him-- AND HE'S AGAINST IT), the votes weren't even close. 2 to 1, even 4 to 1 in some states. That's an awful lot of Kerry voters who fall right in line with their candidate's view on the issue, isn't it?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Yes, Saddam is a horrible, evil man whose government tortured and killed tens of thousands.

However......

That is still not a reason for the US to unilaterally invade the sovereign nation that was Iraq. There are many, many, many governments on Earth today that are as bad as Saddam was if not worse. Myanmar, North Korea, the Sudan, Congo, Rwanda- not to mention Paraguay, Turkmenistan, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, etc., etc., etc.... When are we going to invade those countries and fix their problems? I can tell you when- never, because none of them have the world's second largest oil reserves and a dictator who tangled with Dubya's Poppy.

Plus, let's not ever forget that we were told our government was invading Iraq as part of the War On Terrorism.
It was never presented as a War On Dictators.

So, once again I come back to this... if Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved with 9/11, why did the Bush Administration feel it was more important to take HIM down before taking down Osama?

No weapons of mass destruction... no concrete links to recent terroristic endeavours... no involvement with the 9/11 attacks.... and, yet, he became Top Priority.
While Osama's still making threats against our country and our allies, 3.2 years later.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Plus, let's not ever forget that we were told our government was invading Iraq as part of the War On Terrorism.
It was never presented as a War On Dictators.

So, once again I come back to this... if Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved with 9/11, why did the Bush Administration feel it was more important to take HIM down before taking down Osama?

No weapons of mass destruction... no concrete links to recent terroristic endeavours... no involvement with the 9/11 attacks.... and, yet, he became Top Priority.
While Osama's still making threats against our country and our allies, 3.2 years later.

Osama was still being searched for - it's not as if we've given up on him! But he has proven to be a hard man to find. Believe me, if he were found, he wouldn't be let off the hook.

[JamieSPC]

Kerry has his extremist supporters, too, you know. In fact the president of North Korea called him a war hero and wanted very badly for him to be elected.

Nancy, don't forget Osama.

And don't underestimate the very real influence of that tape. Those same exit polls had the war on terror at 18%, behind 20% for "moral values" (which, frankly, means nothing or anything) and 19% for the economy. In other words, a statistical "dead heat" (see, I've watched my CNN!!!).

"War on terror" voters broke HARD for Bush.

Now, the Michael Moore question of the day: Since Bush has such strong ties to the Bin Laden family, did he arrange for the tape?

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Plus, let's not ever forget that we were told our government was invading Iraq as part of the War On Terrorism.
It was never presented as a War On Dictators.

So, once again I come back to this... if Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved with 9/11, why did the Bush Administration feel it was more important to take HIM down before taking down Osama?

No weapons of mass destruction... no concrete links to recent terroristic endeavours... no involvement with the 9/11 attacks.... and, yet, he became Top Priority.
While Osama's still making threats against our country and our allies, 3.2 years later.

It's sad that 9/11 became the platform to finish what his dad started.....and I believe this.

And I think fighting terrorism will be an endless battle. If we defeat one group, another will form that hates the US just as much.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

Oh, right. I see so many who post here making that distinction. Once they're called on it, of course.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself. I have always made the distinction.

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

And on issues like gay marriage (to me, the most confounding issue of the election because Kerry's diehard supporters wanted to make it a reason to vote for him-- AND HE'S AGAINST IT), the votes weren't even close. 2 to 1, even 4 to 1 in some states. That's an awful lot of Kerry voters who fall right in line with their candidate's view on the issue, isn't it?

John Kerry doesn't support "gay marriage": True
John Kerry supports an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to forever ban gay marriage: False
John Kerry supports the recognition of gay civil unions: True

George W. Bush doesn't support "gay marriage": True
George W. Bush supports an ammendment to the Constitution of the United States to forever ban gay marriage: True*
George W. Bush supports the recognition of gay civil unions: False*

*I should add that Bush seemingly flip-flopped his opinion on the matter, four days before the election, and stated that it should be up to the states to decide whether or not they allowed gay marriages/civil unions.

In another instance of Bush flip-flopping, he originally told gay Republicans, after being elected in 2000, that he considered gays & lesbians a valuable part of the American Family.
Unfortunately, that all changed.

Why is anyone's guess... but the fact that he gained the vote of four million Evangelical Christians in this election might offer some answers to that question.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Osama was still being searched for - it's not as if we've given up on him! But he has proven to be a hard man to find. Believe me, if he were found, he wouldn't be let off the hook.

Oh, I've never felt he'd be let off the hook if he's found. But why divert our attention away from the entire reason for the War On Terror in the first place?

I can't help but wonder how quickly we may have found Osama if ALL of our man-power was in Afghanistan, rather than Iraq.

For the sake of argument, I'll go along with you and say that the War In Iraq is all part of making this world a safer place... but does it not seem that the situation in North Korea is far more pressing a matter than the situation in Iraq was?

Why did dealing with Saddam Hussein take precedence over finding Osama Bin Laden, and why did it take precedence over resolving the situation with North Korea, a country we KNOW has nuclear capabilties and is prepared to use it?

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by Lux

Well I do recall you recently saying that wartime killing isn't murder. Of course you can have your say but you can't expect to say such things and not receive a response of outrage. If I came here saying I have no respect for black people, I wouldn't expect a healthy discussion and debate about the issue, I'd expect to be burned. It's all on the condition of reason.
.

It's outrageous to differentiate American soldiers sacrificing their lives for their country from people like Charles Manson? I daresay this is not the position of the Democratic party, so why would such a statement receive outrage from them?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by The Tower

What I want to know is since when did the United States of America decide to become the official police unit of the United Nations of Earth?

December 12, 2000.

[sara1998]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Why are we suddenly being innundated with posts from people that hardly ever post who suddenly "object" to our right of free speech?

Maybe "overdiscussed" was the wrong word to use. I don't object to anyone's right to free speech. However, I've read a lot of these threads where it all goes up in bitter arguements, and people getting pissed off at eachother. My point was why can't everyone agree to disagree, and leave it at that? Don't get me wrong. I've learned a lot from all of you, both sides of the coin, in an area where I am basically ignorant. I think the intelligence of people on this board is unbelieveable, as far as politics goes, and respected very much so by myself. That is why I have not bothered to post, just read, and learn. I've read almost all of the links posted, and watched all 3 debates, kept up with the news, and came up with my own opinions. I voted for the first time this year, and my vote went to Kerry.

However, my intention was to state that when religion and politics are discussed, no one side is right or wrong, no one is going to win the arguement, feelings are going to get hurt, and people are going to get pissed off. I'm now going to crawl back into the hole I probably should have never crawled out of.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by Lux

Yeah but it's not outrageous to differentiate when it comes to the US Administration. I wasn't talking about the soldiers. Besides, what about Iraqi soldiers? They were lured by their government. By that token they're just as innocent. When they kill American soldiers, is that murder or can we let that slide aswell?

I can't in good conscience call soldiers on the other side murderers either. Same rules apply.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by sara1998

Maybe "overdiscussed" was the wrong word to use. I don't object to anyone's right to free speech. However, I've read a lot of these threads where it all goes up in bitter arguements, and people getting pissed off at eachother. My point was why can't everyone agree to disagree, and leave it at that? Don't get me wrong. I've learned a lot from all of you, both sides of the coin, in an area where I am basically ignorant. I think the intelligence of people on this board is unbelieveable, as far as politics goes, and respected very much so by myself. That is why I have not bothered to post, just read, and learn. I've read almost all of the links posted, and watched all 3 debates, kept up with the news, and came up with my own opinions. I voted for the first time this year, and my vote went to Kerry.

However, my intention was to state that when religion and politics are discussed, no one side is right or wrong, no one is going to win the arguement, feelings are going to get hurt, and people are going to get pissed off. I'm now going to crawl back into the hole I probably should have never crawled out of.

Some of us are may appear to be fighting when we really aren't. I think I can safely say that in the case of Strandie, Dissention and myself. In fact, there are times when I think we relish arguing with each other.
That said, I wasn't referring to you with my comments but thank you for your well thought out post.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Some of us are may appear to be fighting when we really aren't.

I'm a lover, not a fighter.

Resumés accepted at the following P.O. Box....

[sara1998]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That said, I wasn't referring to you with my comments but thank you for your well thought out post.

Then please accept my apologies. I thought for sure it was a comment in my direction since my opinions and political views are hardly heard here, and at least wanted to clarify my post.