In response to Jp
Jp wrote:
How is Iraq better of with Bush? They have nearly no infrastructure left, more Iraqis have been killed by the war then Saddam ever killed, and now they've got civil wars that're going to last for hundreds of years. I'd think they'd be better off without Bush.

There is plenty of infrastructure left. When troops were going in through cities instead of doing the usual destroying of essentials (power, water, etc.) All of it was kept in working order. Troops who had no prior experience were even doing what most people would consider menial jobs as the people who had done them prior were all Saddam supporters and left before troops got there (Plumbers, electricians, etc.)

And sure, Iraqis were killed, The insurgents running around shooting at troops. Sure there were some civilian casualties, but name any substantial offensive military action that didn't have any. There is also the difference from genocide and casualties of war. Under saddam people killed by the hundreds for seemingly no reason, the number of mass-graves (and the number of bodies in them) proove that.

A lot is being done to improve the conditions there aswell. Sure its not going to look like 5th Ave. in Manhatten, but they are all getting things they never had before. Well built 'modern' structures, entertainment/recreation centers, indoor plumbing, where available electricity. How better living conditions is bad for anyone I fail to see.

What it comes down to no matter what your feelings about it now are; Only time will tell. If it works out well, then great. If it doesn't, did it turn out better than what probably would have happened if Saddam were still in power?

In response to Jp
Jp wrote:
America has freedom of speech in its constitution, but doesn't give a damn about it.

And Americans infringe the right of people to express their religion just as much as a french law. Anybody coming to school in a turban in America would be beaten to a bloody pulp. Homosexuals would have something very similar happen to them.

America's rights of free speech (and so on) have always seemed paradoxical to me, or at least had bad side effects- for example, like you said, you could come in with a turban, but get badly bullied.

Sometimes being a little more uptight, for example in England (yes, I'm blabbing on about there again), can have nicer results than going the whole way.
In response to Theodis
Theodis wrote:
With absolute freedom you have no laws or governement and can do whatever you want. Unfortuanntly so can everyone else even if it isn't in your best interest. This is anarchy and anarchy doesn't last long and just ends up transitioning into a dictatorship.

I would have to disagree there. Being able to commit crimes is not a freedom. Absolute freedom does not include the ability to infringe on others freedom, otherwise it would be a paradox.

If I can infringe on your freedom, then you do not truely have that freedom. Therefor true freedom is just as was stated in the post you replied to. People are completely free when they can do anything they want which does not interfere with others ability to do the same. This means that anarchy is not freedom. Anarchy is oppression by the majority.

A good government is one that achieves the right balance that both protects people and gives them enough freedom to pursue their dreams. Which so far has worked out fine for me in the US :P.

Unfortunately, it has not worked out for me in the US. It has been said to death before, but I will say it again... I have the right to go to war and die for my country but not the right to buy a beer in it.

Of course, I have still gotten my hands on beer a few times anyway since there is nothing wrong with my doing so. This encroachment on my freedom is an illegal action of the government, and my ignoring it does not make me a criminal since the action is not truely a crime.

Furthermore, the US government greatly hindered my attempts to make money when I was "under age". I was a kid who wanted to get out and get a job early on and would have done my fair share at work and earned myself an early savings. Unfortunately for me, I had not yet reached the magical age limit at that time at which I am instantly and mysteriously mature enough to work... as if I wasn't already.

Then there are more, lesser things in a list I won't go into.

Of course, I do not agree with the idea that the US is one of the least free countries. It all depends on how you look at it. Some countries in Europe tax you so heavily that you end up giving the government more than you keep for yourself. And for what? "Free" medicine, which I could have boughten for less money than it cost me through taxes. That means that I am then paying for other peoples medicine, the ones who are actually saving on such a plan, which is a huge freedom violation since theft is actually a crime.

Even though I don't think the US is at the bottom of the barrel, I still do think it is worth fixing up before we try and fix up other peoples cultures. Just because we are not the worst that doesn't mean we should ignore improvement, rather we should attempt improvement until we cannot easily think of how to improve any further.

As the famous scripture says, "Take the plank of wood out of your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck of dust out of your brother's eye."

That is one of the things I dislike about Bush. He is not concentrating enough on keeping our freedoms. However, where Bush is more toward neutral than I would like, Kerry would have been more toward the negative. At least Bush is doing something good with the social security. If only people had listened to the libertarians and gone fully private social security already, then we would not be in such a mess.
In response to Jp
Jp wrote:
America has freedom of speech in its constitution, but doesn't give a damn about it.

Simply not true. We debate about it, but we care deeply about it.


And Americans infringe the right of people to express their religion just as much as a french law. Anybody coming to school in a turban in America would be beaten to a bloody pulp. Homosexuals would have something very similar happen to them.

Actually I see people in turbans all the time. And I'm gay, openly so, and have yet to be beat up.
In response to Jp
Jp wrote:
How is Iraq better of with Bush? They have nearly no infrastructure left, more Iraqis have been killed by the war then Saddam ever killed, and now they've got civil wars that're going to last for hundreds of years. I'd think they'd be better off without Bush.

Saddam got about a million people killed. We haven't gotten quite there yet, or even a fraction of the way there.

I'm happy to have good discussion on these subjects, but you really should consider checking some of your facts before throwing them around.
In response to Jp
Jp wrote:
more Iraqis have been killed by the war then Saddam ever killed

Wrong.
In response to Teh Governator
The Bible says sin is sin, and there is no way around it except through the mercy of Jesus Christ. Look, you brought it up - I'm just telling you what it means. The Bible portrays actions as black and white, but people can be forgiven of them.

The thing is, any sin is still a sin, you know that annoying Acronym that was placed on everything from bookbags to keychains? WWJD? Well, Jesus would have forgiven the gay people, he would even of befriended them (he was friends with the man he knew would deliver him to the cross, Judas), the difference is, he wouldn't have embraced their sin like some of the wayward churches are doing now, he would have said it was wrong, just as he said lieing, adultry, murder, etc. were wrong. A true Christian knows that gay people are to be treated kindly, as kind as anyone else, but there can be no comprimise when it comes to the meat and potatos of our faith.

Christians are to stand against the tides of darkness, to work out our faith with fear and trembling, and to uphold our faith despite persecution.

I bring this up because you errantly said "Instead, they're obliging to their religious lobbyists who are going against everything that the Bible's supposed to stand for (I am mainly speaking of "don't hate thy neighbor", or some crap along those lines). "

I don't expect you to agree with me, I expect you to understand me.
In response to Nick231
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
- that site details the massacre of 5000 kurdish people.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040312-074010-1766r
-that site has some numbers for how many people Saddam butchered

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/04/07/MailCall/ Saddams.Atrocities.Are.Enough.To.Justify.The.New.War.Against .Iraq-514399.shtml
-that website has sound reasoning for the Iraq war in my opinion, though it is quasai old

"Osiraq reactor" - search this sometime, I heard about it on the radio the other day. Apparently the Isrealis knocked
out a reactor that set Saddam's scientists years from achieving nuculear weapons. Currently Isrealis are saying they would be more than willing to do a simmilar thing against the Iranians, should the need arise.

History will someday be the judge, and hopefully people then will see the strategic move to be gained in attacking Iraq's deadly regime, and then the terrorists who reside and/or are trained there.

In response to Jp
Jp wrote:
America has freedom of speech in its constitution, but doesn't give a damn about it.

And Americans infringe the right of people to express their religion just as much as a french law. Anybody coming to school in a turban in America would be beaten to a bloody pulp. Homosexuals would have something very similar happen to them.

You must not be an American. Muslims are generally not beaten bloody in schools, nor are gay people largely discriminated against.

I love how government's inferiority complex's have turned millions into rabid haters of the United States. If any American is asked if they live in an oppressive country they would likely say no. So I don't understand why foreigner's like to spin a tale that we are indeed oppressed and that something must be done.

Also, I love my freedom of speech. It can create some polarization but largely it is beneficial to help address the will of the people.
In response to Elation
I seem to recall a poster of Winston Churchill with a Tommy gun under his shoulder...Has it really been so long a time before the mean old Germans were knocking on your doorstep and you needed a cigar smoking gun toteing genius to save you? Hehe, I love Winston Churchill.

Ever heard of the American Revolution? Or seen the movie, "The Patriot", the one with Mel Gibson, not the crappy one with that lousy actor in it....I think it had an anti terrorist motif or something, it had like Steven Segal or Jean Claude Van Damn in it. Anyways, we have the right to bear arms because it's a carry-over from the times when we needed to protect ourselves from Indians, eachother, and the awful brits. Now, however, we are faced with new threats, eachother, terrorists, and yes, the awful brits (hehe just kidding).

It just wouldn't make any sense to try and ban guns. If you ban guns in a country this size, all the "bad" people would keep their guns to rob, pillage, etc. And some of the smarter "good" people would run down to the local pawn shop and stock up.

Plus you got hunting, a few "gun nuts", who really aren't that bad, those kind of people enjoy crafting guns and shooting them in sanctioned target areas, they're not the ones to be afraid of. They get a bad rap in the media because the simple picture is just too easy. I don't think we need assult rifles in this country or automatics, but I think for recreation and for protection that it isn't all that bad. In fact, you can find some pretty good statistics on the net for how many crimes are actually prevented by firearms. Sound screwy? Slighty - until you stop and think of how scary a hillbilly with a shotgun really is.

Edit*
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/swissgunlaws.html
Check that site out!
In response to Rockinawsome
The point of the right to bear arms is to be able to revolt against a tyrannical government. So say that the current US government became increadibly corrupt, undemocratic, and opressed the people. Say if it was facist, or something, then the people have the right to bear arms to have a revolution and install a new, non-corrupt goverment.

It's the very last member of the US's system of checks and balances.
In response to Rockinawsome
Okay I was thinking about it today - and I came up with one issue I disagree with the republicans on, and that is...*drum roll please*...Outsourcing. I think outsourcing is a bigger problem than most republicans make it out to be. A country can't exist on fluff, we need manufacturing here and now to provide the muscle needed in case something should go terribly wrong in the future. Okay, so far the dems got one issue right - lets hope they don't get carried away.
In response to Elation
I refuse to examine evidence! Said the judge.
In response to Gughunter
"and what could be a more romantic date than taking your sweetie to the shooting range?"

Haha...that's great - I love it.
In response to Crispy
The people of Austrailia, for the moment, haven't been faced with a major situation where someone with a gun shoots someone, and nobody else can do anything about it, short of calling in the rabid Koala Bears to take them down.

If guns were so prolific in Australia, or had as big a role in life as they do in the States, a different scenario would have unfolded after the banning of firearms.
In response to Jp
man...this post is so wrong on so many levels...

The only thing I can agree with is that the education system is screwed up - but my reasoning differs widely.

Why do you blindly believe what you want to when the facts of his education are in front of you?

And why do you fear Christians so much? O no! The creation theory! That's a new one...I don't like the fact that people teach darwinist evolution as fact.
In response to SuperAntx
SuperAntx wrote:
Bush & Son: Taking us to war since 1989.

Bush & Son: protecting my sorry butt since 1989.
In response to Jp
You are so full of propaganda.
In response to Elation
A socialist culture.
"50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMDs "

NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.

"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."

Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/ article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000894970
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8