Main > Everything Else
1000 Reasons not to vote for GW
shmokes:
--- Quote from: Dartful Dodger on August 25, 2004, 01:05:14 pm ---You are wrong, any state can succeed from the union at any time as long as they do it by the book, which they did back then, and Arizona threatened to do a few years ago when Clinton started getting gun grab happy.
...and also I'd like to add...
France was against the American Army from attacking the South, they even helped the confederate army.
Long Live Bush and GOD bless America!
--- End quote ---
Oh....I am wrong. Well, why didn't you say so? When you put it like that I must admit you make a pretty strong argument. What was I thinking pointing to the Constitution. Who needs legal documents when you can just claim something and it becomes so?
The closest you can possibly come to a document legitimizing secession from a legal standpoint would be the Declaration of Independence, where we seceded from Great Britain. Of course, at best, the Declaration of Independence suggests that we fundamentally believe in secession from a repressive government, but it certainly isn't law. And even if it were law at the time, which it wasn't, it would have been succeeded and nullified by the Constitution, as the Articles of Confederation were. And we did fight a little war to go along with the Declaration of Independence in case you're unclear on how easy that secession was.
Jefferson may have believed in the state's right to secede, but that viewpoint never made it into the Constitution (many ideas were discussed at the Constitutional convention that were abandoned in favor of coming up with a document that could be ratified).
And I guess, if you want to add the secession of Arizona to the debate, I have to add the 14th Amendment to your reading material, since it also makes clear that secession is illegal (but, of course, it didn't exist at the time of the Civil War).
edit: Long live Clinton and SATAN bless America! ::)
Mameotron:
--- Quote from: shmokes on August 23, 2004, 12:38:06 am ---
Shortly after our country recieved the most devastating attack in its history our leader decided to virtually ignore the attackers to bring war on a harmless country who's leader he held a grudge with.
--- End quote ---
Shmokes,
Since the discussion has now turned to slavery, racism, 2/3 of a person, etc. I couldn't help notice your previous post.
Iraq is a harmless country with a leader whose only problem is that GW has a grudge against him?? I suppose that's true if you consider a woman to be nothing more than a piece of property. If it's OK to slaughter your own countrymen for having a different religious belief. If you think it is a fitting punishment to chop off the hand of a convicted thief. I don't call that harmless.
It all comes down to morals. Ideally, we should let other countries do whatever they feel is ok, since we don't have to live by their laws. But it just doesn't work that way. When a leader like that tramples all over moral standards that we expect all humans to adhere to, it's time to step in.
Ok, I'll stop now so my bleeding heart doesn't ruin my nice Russian flag t-shirt and interrrupt me sipping my latte (thanks Mr. Curmudgeon, that's one of my favorites now!!).
BTW, I support your argument that is is actually ENJOYABLE to debate politics, and I look forward to hearing your replies.
danny_galaga:
--- Quote from: Mameotron on August 26, 2004, 04:38:18 am ---Iraq is a harmless country with a leader whose only problem is that GW has a grudge against him?? I suppose that's true if you consider a woman to be nothing more than a piece of property. If it's OK to slaughter your own countrymen for having a different religious belief. If you think it is a fitting punishment to chop off the hand of a convicted thief.
--- End quote ---
actually under Saddam women enjoyed much more freedom than those in say, Iran. Saddam wasn't big on the religeous side of things. his foreign minister- Teriq Aziz for instance, was a christian!! . Iraqi women could go to uni, didnt have to cover up and even were allowed to drive cars :o Not including the happless Kurds of course. Those poor ---daisies--- have been bombed and attacked by the British, the Turks AND Saddam.
As for corporal and capital punishment, don't they also chop off hands, heads etc in many other middle east countries too? like Dubyas pals in saudi arabia?
shmokes:
--- Quote from: danny_galaga on August 26, 2004, 09:26:43 am ---actually under Saddam women enjoyed much more freedom than those in say, Iran. Saddam wasn't big on the religeous side of things. his foreign minister- Teriq Aziz for instance, was a christian!! . Iraqi women could go to uni, didnt have to cover up and even were allowed to drive cars :o Not including the happless Kurds of course. Those poor ---daisies--- have been bombed and attacked by the British, the Turks AND Saddam.
As for corporal and capital punishment, don't they also chop off hands, heads etc in many other middle east countries too? like Dubyas pals in saudi arabia?
--- End quote ---
;) I'm so disappointed you beat me to that Danny.
Mameotron, I don't think Saddam was a nice guy. When I referred to him as harmless I meant that he was harmless to us, and to his neighbors, for that matter.
But when it comes to his own people Saddam was a damn good leader as middle eastern leaders go. Already women in Iraq are resigned to the fact that they will no longer be able to attend Universities. What in god's name were we thinking to turn Iraq over to be run as a religeous state? In five years Iraq will be another Iran. Before Saddam Iraq was in turmoil. He kept things relatively calm. He ran a secular state and was extremely progressive on civil rights (including women's rights), as middle-eastern countries go.
If you want to talk about going to war with a country over poor civil rights, where are we with our friends in Saudi Arabia (considering all your examples -- women's rights, chop off hands, etc.) seem to have come from there?
Where have we been in Sudan, where our politicians refuse to use the word genocide since that would essentially commit us to sending over forces and correct the problem. The attrocities going on in Darfur are seriously discusting. Check it out. Iraq was nothing -- a shell of a nation. They were a threat to nobody. Saddam had incorporated more western ideas, secularism, relatively equal rights, etc. than the vast majority of middle eastern countries. We are there for a grudge and oil.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: shmokes on August 26, 2004, 11:25:48 am ---Where have we been in Sudan, where our politicians refuse to use the word genocide since that would essentially commit us to sending over forces and correct the problem. The attrocities going on in Darfur are seriously discusting. Check it out.
--- End quote ---
we're waiting for France to lead the charge, or at least a coalition of the willing.
Countries other than Britain, Spain, Poland, Ackmanistan, Turdsbeckistan, and Whowantstolivethere-stan.