So-called peace activists

[midlifeflyer]

So if I follow your logic correctly midlifeflyer, you think that killing in a war is absolutely no different than an abortion. Leap of logic.

The leap is yours, not mine. I don't equate them at all. I don't even equate all wars with each other.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Mids conscept

So your saying that the Dems concept of no Death penalty but allowing partial birth abortions is fine???????

I don't think so.

Labels are all political. They are designed for "spin". Folks who believe abortion is morally wrong use the "Pro-Life" label because being in favor of something sound better than being "anti" something. "Pro-choice" people use that label for themselves in part because "Pro-abortion" in addition to not really being accurate, sounds terrible. Groups use different labels for their opponents for the same reason.

I choose "anti-abortion" to describe "pro-lifers" merely because I think that the former accurately describes their policy goals and the latter is inconsistent with other views taken by the same people.

 

[slapstick]

I don't trust our government or especially, our media. So much truth comes out 10-20 years after the fact. Why did it take years to find out about the highway out of Kuwait that was littered for miles with burnt corpses of the retreating Iraqi forces? It's a propaganda war.

Doesn't it make you nervous that violent demonstrations against US actions are occuring in countries throughout the world? Look away from U.S. protests and celebrity statements for a second. The world used to idolize our country. If you say you don't care what the voice of the world is saying, that only proves your ignorance. The line between a hyperpower and a rogue nation is growing thinner and thinner.

 

[Snakum]

The line between a hyperpower and a rogue nation is growing thinner and thinner.

Be careful .... you'll wind up being painted with the gigantic 'Unpatriotic Brush'.

Let's face it ... we are bullies gunning for oil, and my former comrades in the 3rd ID will soon be fighting house-to-house against soldiers and police that we helped train. Now ... I said it, and I feel MUCH better.

Minh

 

[Snakum]

Oh ... and let's not forget that we also fomented, and subsequently supported materially and with intel via the CIA/State Dept., the B'ath Party coup in the early 60s in Iraq. And who is head of the B'ath party now? Anyone? Anyone? Saddam.

Oh wait ... we're not thru yet. We also provided training, intel, and weapons components (not weapons) to Saddam during the war with Iran (remember ... we didn't like Iran then). He!! ... we even shot down an Iranian Airbus for Saddam. Nothing like a pause for the cause eh?

I love my country and I put my life on the line for it for five years. But sometimes I wonder about my government. Who the H@LL is running this GODD@MN rodeo? The clowns?

Chickens always come back in the evening, don't they? These latest chickens WILL probably come home to roost too. I hope I'm wrong about that ... but I doubt it.

Minh

 

[100LL... Again!]

Free ointment for lip-biters!

Free lotion for hand-wringers!

This will be a key element of my administration, if elected.

National Anthem: Kumbaya




---------------------------------------------
The UN is dead. Long live the UN.

 

[Ralph]

not really

Why are the protestors overlooking governments and groups that are 'really' evil?

Because they are not part of those groups.

I think our author here has a limited perspective and a simple understanding of the matter at hand.

MY tax dollars are funding the war in Iraq. So if I'm against the war I'm going to protest. Now if its the French that are paying for it (not likely!) then I'm not going to protest because its not my country, not my group, not my money and not my government.

Many of these people are not pro Sadam they are anti spending my money to go do this.

I'm not arguing for or against the war here, I'm just saying this is a lousy case against the protestors.

 

[Jeff G]

Problem is that too many (not all by any stretch) are also pro death penalty and pro-war. My personal definition of "pro-life" doesn't allow for exceptions.

Well put. Let's just say "pro-innocent-life". You correctly point out that determining exactly who the innocent parties are is sometimes difficult, but I think it's safe to say that the pre-born meet that definition. Enemy troops and convicted felons are usually not innocent. Especially in the case of the latter, there should be better ways of making sure, but trial by impartial jury is an imperfect, but not bad method.

 

[100LL... Again!]

People are slaughtered by the tousands in the Sudan regularly. Why don't they protest them?

Praeger is right: They are COWARDS. They know that the US won't shoot them dead for protesting. They would not last 10 seconds in these other countries. Cowardice masking as bravery.

 

[midlifeflyer]

100LL... Again! said:
People are slaughtered by the thousands in the Sudan regularly.

Excellent point. So why aren't we there liberating them from their evil government?

We could probably come up with a nice long list of monstrously oppressive governments. Unfortunately, it would also probably include some of our friends.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Slapman

Why did it take years to find out about the highway out of Kuwait that was littered for miles with burnt corpses of the retreating Iraqi forces?

Number one, it did not take 20 years to find this out. It was known the night we attacked them. The times reported as such as the rest of the world. I was there when that mass exodus happened. I saw it personally. The highway of death was never depicted as anything else but what it was.

He!! ... we even shot down an Iranian Airbus for Saddam. Nothing like a pause for the cause eh

OK, now you prove your mental prowess. Sir, get a grip! If you truly believe this, you need to see a shrink!

 

[slapstick]

I partially agree, Tim47, but don't think it got the attention it deserved. I don't think the average american fully understands what's at stake when going to war. (risks on both sides).

Where'd the Iranian airbus thing come from? maybe i'm missing something.

 

[slapstick]

How about CNN spends a litte more time on this story:



http://www.airliners.net/open.file/332874/L/

 

[Timebuilder]

Problem is that too many (not all by any stretch) are also pro death penalty and pro-war. My personal definition of "pro-life" doesn't allow for exceptions.

Let me step forward and try to help you with this confusion, midlifeflyer. There is no exception necessary if you are working from a basis of facts. In this case, the facts come from a long time ago.

Several people will very likely be offended by this post. ***WARNING*** Discussion of morality in this post.

Pro-Life is a specific position with the regard to the taking of innocent life. That does not simply mean that this life has not been found guilty of a crime, but that it has literally been murdered by the person who has been charged with its preservation, nurturing, and growth. In the words of Shakespeare, it is "murder most foul".

How can this position be aligned with a pro-war (I'll go along, and use your term here, to keep this short) and a pro-death penalty position?

Going to the lodestone of our moral compass, the Creator, we find his basic guide of ten items upon which our realtionship to Him and each other is based. One item is misunderstood. Over the years, it has come to be taken as (in 1611 English) "thou shalt not kill". That seems pretty clear until you go to the actual scriptual references, which is a quite different matter:"thou shalt not murder.

You might have read my previous post regarding the basis of our morality, and the proper place for the civil government of man. The civil government can take a life as punishment, as reaffirmed by the crucifixtion (there's your aprroval of the death penalty) and can prosecute war against another nation for cause. This is considered to be righteous and just. It is not murder, as was prohibited by the commandment. In murder, one human acts to take the life of another without just cause. If a robber pulls a gun on you and you can shoot him first, it is not a case of murder, but self defense. A war can also be undertaken for just cause under the rule of law. The most famous case of approved war is when Israel faced off against the Phillistines, and David slew a giant named Goliath. Even if you regard this story as a fairy tale, it still serves as a good illustration of an approved situation where a life is taken.

So you see, this is truly a harmonius position when you understand the difference between killing and murder. Even under modern law, they are not the same thing.

 

[Cardinal]

Many of these people are not pro Sadam they are anti spending my money to go do this.

Assuming $75-100 Billion is indeed the tab, that equates to $300-400 out of pocket for the "average" American. Considering the "progressive" nature of the tax system most of us common folk will be coughing-up around $200. If somebody offered me $200 to stand in the middle of a San Francisco freeway all day, I seriously doubt that I'd do it - and I'm furloughed!.

Today I spent $306.84 at the Ford dealership replacing a sensor that in no way affected the drivability of my vehicle, heck I didn't even know it existed.

$200 to invade a country, during which I and the majority of males my age won't have to get shot at, is quite a bargain. Or look at it this way, if the price of gasoline falls a mere 20 cents I'll be money ahead by the end of the year! I realize that this is very serious business, and blood is being shed. But the financial argument is not a valid one.