1 reason not to vote for John Kerry

[fredster]

It really doesn't matter as long as you have a detailed video of the whole thing.

[GGKoul]

Genitals is such a gross word.

how about....Vote for Kerry = Kick to the Gentiles...less gross?

Genitals...tastes great!!

Dude, you need help

[fredster]

Less Filling !!!!

[shmokes]

The states can pass an amendment at any time.  Right?

The operative word here, of course, is states.  That's states with an S at the end of the word.  I'm not arguing that the states, collectively, do not enjoy sovereignty.  They do, in fact.  They're called the United States of America.  When they act collectively to amend the constitution they aren't acting as individual sovereign states.  They're just participating in a republican democracy.  The fact that they get a single vote certainly does not meet the threshold for sovereignty.  A state that cannot unilaterally govern itself is not sovereign.  And if you think that the constitution is silent on the issue of sovereignty I recommend that you take a look at Article I Section 10, Article 4 Section 3, Article 6 and the 14th Amendment.  And, once again, there's that whole civil war thing.

Consider applying your definition of sovereignty to the United Nations.  Would it be a violation of U.S. sovereignty if we could not withdraw from the U.N. without the consent of 3/4 of its members?  Would it be a violation of U.S. sovereignty if the U.N. banned the death penalty or forced us to remove the words, "under god" from the pledge of allegiance?  Of course it would, yet these are just a couple of powers the feds have over states.  State laws are subordinate to the U.S. constitution.  That alone defeats sovereignty.  You can't be a sovereign state and subordinate to another state simultaneously.

[TA Pilot]

A state that cannot unilaterally govern itself is not sovereign.

And the pont here is that the states can decide that they -want- to govern themselves, individually, and take back the sovereignty they loaned to the Federal gvmnt.  

Remember that the Constitution is an agreement between states, and nothing more.  



And if you think that the constitution is silent on the issue of sovereignty I recommend that you take a look at Article I Section 10, Article 4 Section 3, Article 6 and the 14th Amendment.  

These are rights that the states loaned to the Fed gvmnt - and they are rights that the fed gvmnt cannot keep them from taking back.



And, once again, there's that whole civil war thing

Which is a seperate issue, though secession isnt prohibited by the Constitution and is therefore protected under the 10th amendment.   State membership into the US is not specified as in perpetuity.



Consider applying your definition of sovereignty to the United Nations.  Would it be a violation of U.S. sovereignty if we could not withdraw from the U.N. without the consent of 3/4 of its members?

And if the UN can have alll of its power removed w/o any way to stop it, how can it be sovereign?  Its power is dependent on the consent of its members, not any rights inherent unto itself.  

No one considers the UN to be sovereign in any way shape or form; binding membership would not change this.



 Would it be a violation of U.S. sovereignty if the U.N. banned the death penalty or forced us to remove the words, "under god" from the pledge of allegiance?  Of course it would, yet these are just a couple of powers the feds have over states.

Because the states LET the fed Gvmnt have that power, and can take that power back w/o the consent of the Fed Gvmnt or the Fed Gvmnt being able to stop it.  The Fed Gvmnt doesnt have any power that the states dont let it have.




State laws are subordinate to the U.S. constitution.  That alone defeats sovereignty.  You can't be a sovereign state and subordinate to another state simultaneously.

See above.

Can the states dissolve the Fed Gvmnt?  Yes.
Can the Fed Gvmnt dissolve the states?  No.

Therefore, the states, though they currently choose to subordinate themselves to a central gvmnt, are sovereign.  They, not the fed Gvmnt hold the ultimate power.


The fed Gvmnt is a child of the states, put in charge to run the house.   The parents still own the house, and can remove the child from power at any time.  The parents - the states - are sovereign.
 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

1 reason not to vote, plenty of reasons he'll win...

[TA Pilot]

CNN Poll - the rest of the story:

Before the debate, 52 percent of those interviewed said they planned to vote for Bush, 44 percent for Kerry and 2 percent for Ralph Nader.

By contrast, the last CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, taken September 24-26, had 53 percent of all registered voters choosing Bush, 42 percent preferring Kerry and 3 percent favoring Nader.

Overall, 53 percent of Thursday's debate watchers interviewed said Kerry did the better job, compared with 37 percent who favored Bush.

Kerry's chief strength: 60 percent said he expressed himself more clearly than Bush did.

But 54 percent said Bush would be tougher as president, compared with 37 percent listed Kerry as tougher. And by a 48 percent to 41 percent margin, debate watchers said Bush was more likable.

Of those polled, 50 percent said Bush was more believable and 45 percent said they were more likely to believe Kerry.

More than six in 10 said that both candidates' criticisms of their opponents were fair.

On Iraq, 54 percent of debate watchers polled before Thursday's night's matchup said Bush would handle Iraq better than Kerry.

Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll.

After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.

The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate.

Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.

[DYNAGOD]

if I hear one more mention of polls i think im going to puke..
the entire notion and concept of polls is flawed and sways opinions artifically..asking 30 people what they think and then portraying their concensus as the overall opinion of all americans is a crime and it needs to stop..
sadly people cant differentiate reality from the poll fodder theyre fed by the media..some people actually misconstrew this as the overall opinion of their peers and take it as fact and misleadingly base their votes off this crap.. the media has too much influence..and polls are a tool of manipulation..

NO ONE ASKED ME! SO ANY POLL MEANS NOTHING..

[fredster]

DynaGod is right.

Who need Statistics?  I mean all that math is so confusing.  

I am voting for DyanGod. His slogan - WHEN I'M IN CHARGE - THERE WILL BE CHANGES MADE!

catchy huh?

[Dexter]

How bout 1 reason to vote FOR Kerry i.e. He's not Bush

(By the way I'm a Wes Clarke fan myself, Kerry is really the lesser of Two evils but the lesser nonetheless)

Dexter

[Dartful Dodger]

How bout 1 reason to vote FOR Kerry i.e. He's not Bush

(By the way I'm a Wes Clarke fan myself, Kerry is really the lesser of Two evils but the lesser nonetheless)

Dexter

That is the only reason people are voting for Kerry.

The flaw in that argument is that, Kerry is not the lesser evil, he's the only evil one running.

[GGKoul]

That is the only reason people are voting for Kerry.

There is other issues out there, but this one is high on the list.

[Dexter]

That is the only reason people are voting for Kerry.

The flaw in that argument is that, Kerry is not the lesser evil, he's the only evil one running.

Hmm, I know the families and loved ones of 23 children and 18 women killed in Samarrah today alone might have a different opinion, but not to worry

Dexter

[abrannan]

DynaGod is right.

Who need Statistics?  I mean all that math is so confusing.  

I am voting for DyanGod. His slogan - WHEN I'M IN CHARGE - THERE WILL BE CHANGES MADE!

catchy huh?

Somebody needs to tell DYNAGOD that when Sinistar said "Run, human!" he didn't mean for office.

[ChadTower]

Hmm, I know the families and loved ones of 23 children and 18 women killed in Samarrah today alone might have a different opinion, but not to worry

Were you paying attention when Kerry voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, while viewing the same intelligence used by Bush to make the decision?

[TA Pilot]

Hmm, I know the families and loved ones of 23 children and 18 women killed in Samarrah today alone might have a different opinion, but not to worry

You know these families?

No?

Then how do you have any idea what opinion they might have?

[Dexter]

You know these families?

No?

Then how do you have any idea what opinion they might have?

Because in my country reporting of Iraq news is non partisan and we got to see Iraqis carrying what was left of their loved ones from the rubble in Samarrah. I think the look on their faces said enough about their opinion on their 'liberation' and the people responsible. Give them liberty or give them death, yes?

Dexter

[ChadTower]

Shouldn't they be angry at the people who set the bomb, rather than people who did not set the bomb?

[TA Pilot]

I think the look on their faces said enough about their opinion on their 'liberation'


Oh.  I see.

And tell me:
Can you read minds, too?  Tarot cards?  Tea leaves?

[DrewKaree]

Because in my country reporting of Iraq news is non partisan

Rii-iiight!    Let me guess, you know it's non-partisan because they said so, right?    

Hey, ya know what, in my country, the news I believe reports both sides as well.  I know it because they tell us they're "fair and balanced".  

As John Stossel would say...."Give me a break!"

Oh, when you see them, say hi to the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus for me.  

[Dexter]

And what bomb would this be? I was not referring to any 'terrorist' bomb, I was referring to the US assault on Samarrah in which the associated press and Irish news reported that the first wave of strikes killed 23 children and 18 women, actually more women and children were killed  then insurgents, who shifted position once the pounding started.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit boys and girls. Especially when you're not armed with the facts. And the Iraquis looked very angry with the people who made mincemeat out of their families, would you not? Or would you be throwing flowers at your 'liberators' instead of placing them on your loved ones grave (oh, and before we have anymore attempts at wit, I'm referring to a western funeral, not muslim)?? I don't have ESP or mind reading skills, just eyes and ears and common sense.

Dexter

[Mameotron]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit boys and girls. Especially when you're not armed with the facts.

Hmm, what do you call this?

Hmm, I know the families and loved ones of 23 children and 18 women killed in Samarrah today alone might have a different opinion, but not to worry  

[Dexter]

I put the wink at the end for a reason, to show it was not malicious OR personal in any way. The line in question WAS a personal expression based on fact and was not directed at any forum member as the sarcasm was in my case. Thats the difference. Geez, lighten up everyone, watch some (proper) news reports from the country in question and put things in perspective!

By the way, nobody does sarcasm or piss-taking better than the Irish and trust me, this was not Irish sarcasm in action.

Dexter

[TA Pilot]

And the Iraquis looked very angry with the people who made mincemeat out of their families, would you not?


Who made mincemeat out of them - the Americans who dropped the bomb, of the insurgents the Americans were trying to kill?

If you were right, and every civilian that lost someone to an American bomb hated us, we'd still be at war with Germany and Japan.

[Dexter]

Who made mincemeat out of them - the Americans who dropped the bomb, of the insurgents the Americans were trying to kill?

If you were right, and every civilian that lost someone to an American bomb hated us, we'd still be at war with Germany and Japan.

The bomb, dropped by the Americans, of whom Bush is the Commander in chief, made mincemeat of those women and children, lets not sugarcoat it.

These people are fighting an invasion force who have occupied their country and are stealing their main natural resource. Would you not do the same??

[TA Pilot]

The bomb, dropped by the Americans, of whom Bush is the Commander in chief, made mincemeat of those women and children, lets not sugarcoat it.

WHY did we drop that bomb?
WHO were we trying to kill?
WHAT do those people want?


These people are fighting an invasion force who have occupied their country and are stealing their main natural resource. Would you not do the same?

News:
The people we're trying to kill are trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Iraq.

To argue that their actions are legitimate is to consider their goals legitimate.

Are you REALLY going to do that?

[Dexter]

The bomb, dropped by the Americans, of whom Bush is the Commander in chief, made mincemeat of those women and children, lets not sugarcoat it.

WHY did we drop that bomb?
WHO were we trying to kill?
WHAT do those people want?


These people are fighting an invasion force who have occupied their country and are stealing their main natural resource. Would you not do the same?

News:
The people we're trying to kill are trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Iraq.

To argue that their actions are legitimate is to consider their goals legitimate.

Are you REALLY going to do that?

First off, just because the intention was to kill insurgents does not excuse the slaughter of innocent women and children. If an invading force on US soil blew your family to pieces because they happened to live a few houses away from American 'terrorists' trying to fight the occupation, would YOU excuse it because they meant well?

Second, there will be no legitimate government in Iraq until a proper election takes place with international monitoring of the ballots. The current 'government' is a puppet government installed by the invading army with a former CIA spy as its leader.

I acknowledge the legitimacy of any nations people to fight a guerilla war against an invading force who have slaughtered 10s of thousands of its people and are sucking its oil wells dry. I do not condone killing be it of Americans OR Iraqis but have an open enough mind to know how I would feel if anybody invaded my country and kiled the people I loved.

[TA Pilot]

First off, just because the intention was to kill insurgents does not excuse the slaughter of innocent women and children.

Hmmm.
What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?



If an invading force on US soil blew your family to pieces because they happened to live a few houses away from American 'terrorists' trying to fight the occupation, would YOU excuse it because they meant well?

We arent an invading force - except to the insurgents.  We're there at the request of the Iraqi government, and acting in their assist.



Second, there will be no legitimate government in Iraq until a proper election takes place with international monitoring of the ballots.

So, in January, your argument will change?  or just be invalid?


The current 'government' is a puppet government installed by the invading army with a former CIA spy as its leader.

Yes, Mr Kerry - way to go.  Nice to know you think our allies are just pawns.  I'm sure this attitude will endear you to their hearts.


I acknowledge the legitimacy of any nations people to fight a guerilla war against an invading force who have slaughtered 10s of thousands of its people and are sucking its oil wells dry.

So, you support the insurgent efforts of Ba'athists who look to re-install the former government, and the Muslim extrmists what want to turn Iraq into a theocracy, ala Iran.

Well, at least you admit it.  Thats more than most people like you will do.



I do not condone killing be it of Americans OR Iraqis but...

...you support the efforts of those that do.

How does that make you any different from them?


have an open enough mind to know how I would feel if anybody invaded my country and kiled the people I loved.

And how would you feel if the Canadian military, in assisting the American military in its effort to kill that invader, dropped a bomd and mistakenly blew up your house?



Your problem is you dont have the testicular fortitude to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys.

[Crazy Cooter]

"We're there at the request of the Iraqi government, and acting in their assist."
Saddam called us to come over?  Oh wait, you're talking the government we put in place after we were already there.

"the Canadian military"
Who??  heheh.

[TA Pilot]

Saddam called us to come over?  Oh wait, you're talking the government we put in place after we were already there.

So....  what do you think of the German and Japanese government?



"the Canadian military"
Who??  heheh.

Thats it... .avoid the question.

[ChadTower]

"the Canadian military"
Who??  heheh.

Thats it... .avoid the question.

You can't call the Canadian military, he goes home at 5pm like everyone else.

[Dexter]

What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?

Oh yes, which country did that again??

We arent an invading force - except to the insurgents.  We're there at the request of the Iraqi government, and acting in their assist.

In this instance, the tail doesn't wag the dog. The US installs a puppet government which, surprise surprise, then requests it sticks around. Democracy by definition cannot be forced on a culture.

So, in January, your argument will change?  or just be invalid?

If the election is fully inclusive and everybodys vote counts then there will be a legitimate government so I can then have no arguement. But seeing as though this didn't even happen in the US in 2000, I don't hold much hope.


Yes, Mr Kerry - way to go.  Nice to know you think our allies are just pawns.  I'm sure this attitude will endear you to their hearts.

Just calling it as it is guys.

So, you support the insurgent efforts of Ba'athists who look to re-install the former government, and the Muslim extrmists what want to turn Iraq into a theocracy, ala Iran.

Thats putting words in my mouth. As stated I acknowledge the legitimacy of any nations people to fight a guerilla war against an invading force who have slaughtered 10s of thousands of its people and are sucking its oil wells dry.

I do not condone killing be it of Americans OR Iraqis but...
...you support the efforts of those that do.

How about I cut your sentences in half and finish them off for you. Again, words in my mouth, and any intelligent person reading this thread will pick up on it.

And how would you feel if the Canadian military, in assisting the American military in its effort to kill that invader, dropped a bomd and mistakenly blew up your house?

Answering a question with another question isn't really answering it at all now is it? Never mind, I think the next bit sums it up for me really.....

Your problem is you dont have the testicular fortitude to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys.

Ah yes, first the sarcasm, now the insults. I'm glad I didn't have to resort to either to hold a conversation. I was born and live in a country that fought colonisation with Guerilla war. Who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are is relative. Thanks to the policy of preemption Americas standing in the world is severely tainted.

If somebody thinks they can accurately judge a persons 'testicular fortitude' from a forum thread then it really says more about the poster than the person they are insulting.

Off home for the weekend. Have a good one guys! I look forward to reading any replies on Monday

Dexter

[DrewKaree]

Thats putting words in my mouth.

So that we aren't accused of putting words in your mouth, you said the following:

Because in my country reporting of Iraq news is non partisan

Your complete refusal to answer how you know this to be fact is thus far clouding your assertion that

...Especially when you're not armed with the facts....I don't have ESP or mind reading skills, just eyes and ears and common sense.

Since you've not explained your case factually regarding your assertion that your country reports news in a non-partisan fashion, I can only infer that when you state that we're not armed with facts, you in fact mean not armed with YOUR facts.

Since you have eyes and ears and common sense, did you use them when viewing your "non-partisan" news reporting?  If so, then your common sense should prevail in stating your case and showing the sarcastic slack-jawed yokels amongst us that, in fact, there IS such a thing as non-partisan reporting in your country.

Until you can show otherwise, I'm forced to come to no other conclusion than:  We, the great unwashed, cannot be dealt with in a fashion other than the way you have, and we should kneel with our heads flat on the ground when you deign to proselytize to the group.  You possess a highbrow sense of humor that is above us, giving us yet another reason to kneel before you. and leave, striving to better ourselves to the level you have reached.

Pretentiousness, thy name is Dexter.

Thank goodness you're coming back to school after the weekend.  Perhaps when you're done with all of your higher education, we can all sit around you in a circle to hear you rhapsodize about the utopia you plan to instill on this planet.

Sarcastic?  You betcher @$$ I'm sarcastic.  Lowest form of wit?  As long as it leaves you spouting platitudes about your "common sense", it's effective as all get out.  

You've bested me, Dex.  I used to think that I could be considered a Specialist for the Pompous Windbag Division.  I couldn't hold a candle to your expertise.  Maybe I'll now be demoted to "Overblown Buffoon Division"  

[TA Pilot]

What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?

Oh yes, which country did that again??

We did.
What do you think of it?



In this instance, the tail doesn't wag the dog. The US installs a puppet government which, surprise surprise, then requests it sticks around. Democracy by definition cannot be forced on a culture.

There you go - demeaning the people you supposedly care so much about.

Given your opinion of the Iraqi government, Mr Kerry, why do you think you can work with them in any effective manner?




If the election is fully inclusive and everybodys vote counts then there will be a legitimate government so I can then have no arguement. But seeing as though this didn't even happen in the US in 2000, I don't hold much hope.

Of course not.
And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that your position -doesnt- change.



As stated I acknowledge the legitimacy of any nations people to fight a guerilla war against an invading force who have slaughtered 10s of thousands of its people and are sucking its oil wells dry.

The insurgents are fighting the Iraqis, and us.
In order for your argument to hold water, you have to argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'.

You're going to do that?
Really?




I do not condone killing be it of Americans OR Iraqis but...

...you support the efforts of those that do.

How about I cut your sentences in half and finish them off for you. Again, words in my mouth, and any intelligent person reading this thread will pick up on it.

Just calling it as it is.



Who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are is relative.

Why does it not surprise me that you'd say that.

If you cannot, without hesitation, reservation or equivocation, denote the insurgents as the "bad guys", then you cannot possibly be reasoned with.

[Dexter]

Morning guys, have read your reply and am going to put this to bed now as I have not received a reply attempting to converse with me that did not contain sarcastic or abusive remarks. The rules for this forum state "There is more
tolerance for stronger language on this forum,
but the rules for civility remain the same." so if you can't be civil, I can't be bothered wasting my time, so this will probably be my last post in relation to this, just to answer your questions...

TA Pilot wrote:What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?

Oh yes, which country did that again??

We did.
What do you think of it?

Nope, YOU did it. I'm in Dublin, Ireland, born and raised here. We're a neutral country and had no part in the mass incendiary raids you mention.

Given your opinion of the Iraqi government, Mr Kerry, why do you think you can work with them in any effective manner?

Of course, and they'll do what they're told, just like any good puppet government.

And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that your position -doesnt- change.

If you're going to force 'democracy' on a country, then it should be real democracy (i.e. a government of the people, by the people, for the people). IF the election is fully inclusive and everybodys vote counts then there will be a legitimate government. This IS my position so why will it change when this happens, as promised. There is no legitimate government yet.

The insurgents are fighting the Iraqis, and us.
In order for your argument to hold water, you have to argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'.

The majority of insurgents ARE Iraqis. They view Iraqis assisting the US as collaborators to the invading force. And I don't argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'. As I've stated SEVERAL times, Iraq  presently has NO legitimate government. The present government is headed by a former CIA spy. Hopefully elections will change that. The vast majority of insurgents are this nations indigenous people fighting an invading force. Know thy enemy guys, understand their reasons for fighting and respect their opinions, then you can begin to win the peace.


Who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are is relative.
Why does it not surprise me that you'd say that.

Because its the truth. Think the Vietcong soldiers woke up every morning and said 'We're the bad guys, lets go kill nice american good guys'. It depends on weater you're the bomber pilot or the 'bombee', or weather you're an invader or invadee.

If you cannot, without hesitation, reservation or equivocation, denote the insurgents as the "bad guys", then you cannot possibly be reasoned with.

Well I can see the arguements from the otherside of the fence. But I guess it's like Bush said "You're either for us or against us". I'm in a neutral country and see non partisan reporting (explained next). Basically this: 'We're invading Iraq because Saddam has WMDs and can launch them within 45 minutes and his links with Al Quaida'. Then, no WMDs found, no conclusive link found, so.... 'We have freed the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam'. It stinks. The reasons given to go to war and kill so many don't hold water so lets change the reasons after the damage is none. Nice.


DrewKaree wrote: Since you've not explained your case factually regarding your assertion that your country reports news in a non-partisan fashion, I can only infer that when you state that we're not armed with facts, you in fact mean not armed with YOUR facts.

My news reports come from RTE (Radio Telef

[TA Pilot]

...have read your reply and am going to put this to bed now as I have not received a reply attempting to converse with me that did not contain sarcastic or abusive remarks.

Awww
Someone can't handle a little critical commentary.
Awww

If the responses you got were "abuseive" in your mind, you better plan on staying in school for a long, long time.



Nope, YOU did it. I'm in Dublin, Ireland, born and raised here. We're a neutral country and had no part in the mass incendiary raids you mention.

You didnt answer the question.
What about them?  Bad?  Good?  Ugly?
Do you think of FDR for killing civilians like you think of GWB?


Of course, and they'll do what they're told, just like any good puppet government.

Whoa!
I bet they LOVE your characterization.  I'm sure you'll win their hearts and minds!!

I wonder if you thought the same of Germany and Japan.



And I don't argue that the insurgents represent the legitimate government of Iraq, and that the current Iraqi government is an 'invader'.

Well then - you have nothing to stand on.




Because its the truth. Think the Vietcong soldiers woke up every morning and said 'We're the bad guys, lets go kill nice american good guys'. It depends on weater you're the bomber pilot or the 'bombee', or weather you're an invader or invadee.

No.   It doesnt.
The Ba'athists and Islamic extremists are not, and will never be, the good guys.

Your problem is you're all wound up in moral relativism.  Got news for you:  moral relativism can be used to justify anything and everything.

According to the moral relativist, Hitler wasnt a "bad guy".   If you can't call Hilter a "bad guy", you cannot be reasoned with.

[DrewKaree]

Morning guys, have read your reply and am going to put this to bed now as I have not received a reply attempting to converse with me that did not contain sarcastic or abusive remarks. The rules for this forum state "There is more
tolerance for stronger language on this forum,
but the rules for civility remain the same." so if you can't be civil,

If you view the replies to your post abusive and uncivil, then I'm requesting you send off round after round of protest pm's to MrC, lobby Saint to boot him off the board for his remarks, and ask that Saint re-word the forum rules.  

I don't have quite the thin skin you seem to possess, and view civility just a WEE bit differently than yourself.  You'll find me, outside of these threads, quite easy to get along with, as others of your political stripe already have.  Political views, like religious ones, are by and large strongly held and vigorously defended.

If, as you state, we use sarcasm to the n^th degree, is it possible that some of those things you state are abusive are simply being classified according to your bias?  

TA Pilot wrote:What do you think of the wholesale slaughter of women and children diring the mass incendiary raids over Japan?

Oh yes, which country did that again??

We did.
What do you think of it?

Nope, YOU did it. I'm in Dublin, Ireland, born and raised here. We're a neutral country and had no part in the mass incendiary raids you mention.

you seem to be taking this far more personally than is warranted.  This probably has to do with my first reply above.

TA is FROM the U.S., and you DO seem to grasp that, however, you certainly HAVEN'T picked up on the fact that when he says "We did", he is REFERRING to the U.S.  

I thought you were trying to give the impression you were more intelligent than us, since we use sarcasm and lack reason.  Giving us such large targets makes it hard for our slack-jawed yokel instincts NOT to take over

Given your opinion of the Iraqi government, Mr Kerry, why do you think you can work with them in any effective manner?

Of course, and they'll do what they're told, just like any good puppet government.

Given that you come from another country, I believe you read this statement as asking something entirely different.  Otherwise, I believe you aren't wanting to have "an intelligent conversation" and are using sarcasm in your reply.

My news reports come from RTE (Radio Telef

[Mameotron]

  It is presumptious at best to assume that all religions forbid homosexual marriages. Gay marriage may go against the Judeo-Christian part of what defines a marriage, but what about Wicca, Buddism, insert-religion-of-choice-here?

I have just finished going through Eerdman's Handbook of the World's Religions (revised 1994), and cannot find ONE religion that condones gay marriage.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802808530/qid=1097565870/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4838071-2107805?v=glance&s=books

[Mameotron]

I just don't see how anyone can debate the situation in Iraq and not even mention religion.  Here's a quote from a book review that I think is the center of the issue:

"Holy War: The Blood of Abraham identifies those elements of Judeo/Christian and Islamic belief that are the underlying cause of 21st century world religious conflict.

Book Description
Holy War: The Blood of Abraham is a book about the origins of Islamic terrorism.

It addresses two of the most important questions facing the world today:

What is the role of the religions of Abraham in present world conflict?
Is only Islam to blame, or also Judaism and Christianity?

It exposes the underlying flaws that are built into each of these three religious belief systems and, although it leaves it to the reader to decide, argues that culpability for Islamic terrorism lies not only with the failures of Islam, but also with the failures of Judaism and Christianity.

It is a book that calls on its readers; Christians, Jews and Muslims, and all others, to look within themselves in search for answers to the most important questions facing our world today."


Now, I haven't read the book and don't endorse it, but the review sums up the whole problem pretty nicely.

Here's one more quote to think about:

"To this day, these issues; Jewish, Christian, and Muslim still simmer and fester. As they have in the past, they continue to be a major underlying cause of world conflict--a form of conflict which now has led to world terrorism. Pointing to the inerrancy of their scriptures, as well as their own interpretations of these scriptures, fanatical factions within nations and in some cases the nations themselves brazenly justify their actions as the will of God. They claim to be chosen to carry out his will."

[fredster]

Good point Mameotron.

Iraq was ran by a secular government.  If Saddam's regieme had fallen by internal conflict, obviously an Islamic militant government had a good chance to take over.  Either by interal fundamentalists or the obvious neighbor, Iran.

If that happened, then Iraq and the old Afgahnistan Taliban government could/would be similar.  Iran would have had the power to take over Iraq if Saddam fell for any other reason than the US.

That would have been a very very big problem too.  More than what we could imagine.  Iran would have been one of the largest and richest countries in that area of the world with an possible army rivaling the US.

If we didn't go in and hold it, then any number of the adjacent Isalmic governments would have had access to the resouces of Iraq.

We probably did more to promote the peace and stability in the region than any other senerio possible.

Thank God Bush had the vision to stop that.