Damn, we almost made it a whole page before Obi royally ****ed it up. 'Grats, man.

I'm going through and responding to stuff as I see it, so I might respond to something that's already been answered.
I'm for Kerry, other people have done a good job of summarizing why, and I agree with them.


Gays are oppressed in the US. They are a minority. The parades allow them to stand together and support each other, something they need.


While I think that your opinion of it is contemptible, at least you're honest and do understand the rights they have.

Gay people can have children and should be able to adopt. Plus, there's a heck of a lot more to it than tax benefits.


Wrong. Our problems with the war in Iraq have nothing to do with us. Bush doesn't seem to care about the people there, but we do.


Of course, Bush and Cheney have also said that they need to be sensitive.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=139030
Scroll down to where it says "Cheney's 'Sensitive' Hypocrisy"


Yes, those all seem honorable. He helped expose the atrocities being committed by the Americans in Vietnam.


If you think opposing the Vietnam war would have helped anyone's political career, then you obviously know nothing about it.


Wow, how incredibly courteous.


W
T
F
Sorry, but you are wrong. Can somebody else step up and explain why? I'm too shocked to do so.


He's got a sound enough reason. Matt, your assumption about Kerry is correct. You would agree with him more, but unfortunately, he's still pretty right-wing.


The democrats REALLY let us down with that. A lot of them signed it without even reading it.


Murder ends up with someone being hurt. Homosexuality doesn't.
It's definitely not worthless. Sex has worth besides reproduction.


Too bad they were intentionally used in places that also took out civilians.


I'm glad you care so much about the poor. If you think it's because they don't work hard enough, try telling that to a poor person, they'll have some words for you.
And no, they do not have it better off than the rich did. You apparently don't know much about the poor people in the US.

Sorry Freelancer, are you okay with above post? I think the thread is already derailed, but I hope I didn't make it worse.

Don't worry about it. I'm not here to be some anal retentative guy to keep the thread on track. It's fine.

Coming together for a cause or a belief that one thinks is being subjucated in hopes of change. Good thing.

Coming together and dressing up in ridiculous looking outfits. Bad thing. You get your message across better if you're not dressed like it's Halloween.


What? You think conservaties don't give a rat's *** about the Iraqi? No. I want them to get on their feet and be successful. You think Bush is just going to let the Iraqi waste themselves or regress into a hell-hole country? No. He'll clean up after his mess. But the Iraqi have to help themselves too. We're not going to shoulder all the work.

Wait what?

Civilians die in war. That's been happening since the city-states of Mesopotamia. It sucks I know. But we have new technologies to minimize civilian casualties.

The "poor" do have opportunites abound in this nation to at least get them from under the rut. No I'm not talking about "rags to riches" but that is not entirely impossible...just takes effort. Americans are a VERY charitable people. We will help anyone genuinely in need. Some people do work really hard and still get the *** end of the stick. C'est la vie. I don't denegrate them. I, by no means, lived in a wealthy or even nice home. Of my entire life, I've been in just...3 homes. The rest were apartments/condos. And yes, we were nomads. To my memory, we moved 10 times in my 22 years of existence.

I, myself, do not like the Patriot Act. And I'm not alone amongst conservatives. I feel it is a BIG government expansion.

Hint: AIDS does not only affect gay people. Hint: Allowing gay marriages would encourage monogomy.



Hint: MURDER RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF A HUMAN BEING! Being gay doesn't. There is no harm in gay people marrying one another. There is in murder. Obviously. You can't really be this obtuse, can you?



http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ - The deaths are at around 15000. That's not "incredibly low".



Did you read Buffet's quote? He's getting taxed 3%, and his secretary ten times as much!



No they don't. They might have TVs and cars, but they don't have servants preparing lavish meals, armies to die for them, huge palaces and fine clothes.



No, they really can't. Tell me how a guy from the inner city is gonna get rich working at McDonald's to help support his family?



You know the bit where Bush, under the impression he is on a "mission from God", is invading other countries in an attempt to make them more like his own? Yeah, that's it.



I know. I'd vote for Nader, but he has wacky "let's ban videogames" ideas. Luckily it's merely a hypothetical exercise

Unfortunately, the major candidates in Australia seem to have even less separating themselves than those in the USA. Whatever happened to election choices? In Australia what it basically comes down to is choosing between Tasmanian forests or a free freeway. They don't seem to have any other issues!

I haven't really followed Nadar. Is there a site or something that shows what he supports? (just for interest.)

http://www.nader.org/ Includes some things written by him, so you could look there to see his opinion.

Anyway, let me try to pick up where I left off...

• Social Services: Normally, the Republican Party is against government funding of social programs to benefit the lower and working classes, or other disadvantaged groups. However, Bush has shown himself to be different here, including his rigorous work to improve MediCare (government-funded health care for the elderly), providing a new plan for prescription drug coverage, and the ability to let poeple choose any physician and hospital they want for service. The effectiveness of his plan is an open question, but it's nice to see a president make an attempt at improvement.Kerry on the other hand is focusing primarily on reducing the costs of health care for virtually everybody in America. Most of these claims coming from either side are rather vague, and questionable on either their effectiveness or cost, so I might say that this subject is a bit of a tie for the two, though I think Kerry might be a little ahead, taking a step toward a more state-run health system (in some cases, state-run is better for the customers/clients than private-run, and health care is one of these cases).

More later...

Crap. No, I didn't mean to say that at all, sorry. There are a lot of conservatives who don't seem to care about them, but not most of them. I think Bush WANTS them to be better off, but I'm not sure that he has their best interests in mind.
Rush Limbaugh blew off the Abu Gharib thing as "the kind of stuff that happens at a Britney Spears concert". That is unforgivable, and anyone who believes that really doesn't care bout the Iraqi.
Bush doesn't seem to care about their rights. Innocent people get picked up off the streets and thrown into prison for no reason. The conditions in the prisons are horrible. Whoever they contracted to send food sent bad food and not enough of it. And I don't need to go into the stuff about the people they have working at those prisons.


Yep, Kerry's conservative. Or it might just be that he's running that way. Anyone who happens to be running for president always goes for the middle, and the middle happens to be the right in America. America's liberal politicans are actually pretty conservatives. Our conservatives are extreme conservatives.


Disregarding civilian lives is what they were doing. I used to have a cite bookmarked, but I lost all my bookmarks. I'll have to dig up some more...
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/04/clusterbombs0402.htm
http://warandlaw.homestead.com/files/hospitals.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iraq/document.do?id=66FAC9972223B83180256D03003C478D
And it's not just a few civilians who died in Iraq: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


I'm glad you are understanding. I don't think everyone does have a chance of getting out themselves. A lot of people who are poor work very hard just to stay where they're at.
Just as long as you're not one of those people who say that poor people are poor because they're lazy.


Of course it does! It spreads AIDS!!!!


Does he really? I know Joe Lieberman does.
I'm not voting for Nader because he will lose. Kerry might not, and I'd take him over Bush.


Actually, that would be kind of a nice change of pace.


The medicine prices in the US are a lot higher than they need to be. Why? Bush is allowing it.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:A6bTiunsa0sJ:www.drs.org.au/new_doctor/81/81.1.pdf+%22medicine+prices%22+US+bush&hl=en

You guys all just believe what you want to believe. This forum alone, much less the nation, could come up with 15 different interpretations and sides each party took on any one issue. One person says pot-tot-o, the other says pot-at-o.

which reminds me, when I saw the title of this thread I thought it was about me for a second...

Ha... slipknot...

Yeah, that's how Clinton won.

Now, onto my views.

Bush = idiot
Kerry = bigger idiot
Nader = Not gonna win + don't know his views = screw that
Go Bush.

While I don't support a number of things Bush has done, other things I support.

Kerry wants to legalize abortion under all circumastances, be it rape or simply irresponsibility. He also wants to legalize limited euthanasia. Also, the gay marriage thing. I am opposed to all of these things.

It is okay to be gay, but anything more I believe is morally wrong. Marriage is supposed to be open to procreation and love for the partner, and gay rights only support one of those two points and adoption != sex. Yes the constitution technically guarantees freedom to gay marriage, but remember that the constitution is not perfect; hence, we have the amendments.

As for euthanasia and abortion, simply put, if legalized, America will experience a significant jump in deathrates. More babies will die (call them fetuses if you want; they are still living humans because of the POTENTIAL that they have to grow and learn, etc.). I also believe that life begins at the moment of conception. This is the moment at which the potential to grow begins, thus, a baby. Fertilization is the cause that makes the egg multiply/grow. If life doesn't begin here, where does it start and why? To my knowledge, there are no other landmarkers except birth itself, and even then, the fetus is just as good as a real baby (which it is anyway).

Euthanasia -- I'm kinda dark on this subject, but really, you cannot kill anyone out of mercy. No one has a right to die; only a right to die in peace. I'll say no more on this issue.

I forget if Kerry supports stem cell research/cloning, but I believe that anything that ends a (potential) human life is wrong, unless done in self defense and as a last resort. No way cloning can be in self defense, nor stem cell research -- they do not directly, in themselves, protect life.

There were probably some other points I wanted to add, but I was interrupted before I could finish this post.

Also, I can't vote yet, so I can't oppose Kerry (the heretic). And I have every right to call Kerry a heretic -- he opposes the mentioned critical beliefs of the Catholic Church and yet still claims to be Catholic. This is why there is controversy over whether to allow the Church to offer him communion, but that's another matter...

So it's OK to be gay... just as long as you don't have relationships with people of the same sex?



Interestingly, marriage is open to cousins to marry in several states, but only if no children can be had as a result. Marriage isn't about having children at all, even by the USA's own laws.



Abortion is legal, and has been for decades. Banning abortion is not going to make those pregnant women think, "Gee, perhaps I *should* have this child and take really good care of it!". Instead, it'll be, "Let's find a shady doctor to do this illegally", "I'll go into a back alley with a coat-hanger" or even "I'll just dump the baby in a bin after it's born."

You can't compel through legislation someone to want to have a child.



Both candidates support ending "potential human life". It's just some candidates want to perform scientific research with the stem-cells, whereas Bush wants to just throw them in the trash. All the research that would be done would be done on stem-cells that were otherwise to be thrown away.

So tell me, are straight marriages that don't have children immoral? Is it immoral to marry if one or both of you are infertile?


How about using condoms? Sperm has a potential to become human life.

I've been listening to him on and off for a while. I didn't hear that broadcast so I can't make judgement on his statement. If he said it, well then I'm not surprised. He would be the one to say it. And well, that might have not been the best way to put it, but his underlying point was about all the hype about Abu Gharib. That was a HUGE mountain made out of an ant hill. That story got way too much attention then it got. That should have been at least told, then let the property military personnel deal with the offenders. I think they should all be charged with conduct unbecoming an officer (if they were ones). You just don't do that. But damn, that story made it look like ALL Marines were doing such behavior.

I don't think it was made too big of a deal at all. These were atrocities being committed due to major problems with the chain of command.
If it were better planned, the situation could have been better avoided.
Furthermore, a lot of these people were innocent

I apologize if these arguments I present are not challenging enough for you

That's not what I said (meant). What I meant is that you should not try to prevent children using unnatural means (I know I didn't say that detail before, but read the 2nd to last paragraph of my last post). Being infertile just means you can't have children; it doesn't mean you're trying to totally prevent it.

Well, the condom is preventing the sperm from uniting with the egg, thus it's ending that potential. Either way, sperm on its own does not have the potential of life -- it needs an egg.


Being gay in itself is not one's fault/deliberation. Having sex/relations is. Sex is meant to be shared between partners AND be open to the possibility of children. And obviously, gay couples cannot provide the sperm AND the egg needed for that.

Quote:

Interestingly, marriage is open to cousins to marry in several states, but only if no children can be had as a result. Marriage isn't about having children at all, even by the USA's own laws.

[/quote] Heh, I wasn't familiar with that law. If marriage doesn't involve children (whether you have them or not), why do we procreate?

Quote:

Abortion is legal, and has been for decades. Banning abortion is not going to make those pregnant women think, "Gee, perhaps I *should* have this child and take really good care of it!". Instead, it'll be, "Let's find a shady doctor to do this illegally", "I'll go into a back alley with a coat-hanger" or even "I'll just dump the baby in a bin after it's born."

[/quote] Sorry -- I worded that wrong :o. I meant that if limitations were reduced then more ppl would be dying.
[edit] damnit. I misread that too :mad:. I've been making so many mistakes it's not even funny anymore.
Yeah, it's not going to stop abortion totally, but it will at least discourage it and encourage families/unmarried parents to take responsibility for their actions (sex), or to give up the child for adoption, because odds are someone is going to want the child. To me, abortion is the quick, easy, and half-cowardly way out of dealing with children (of course for guys, it's too easy to get out of it).

Quote:

You can't compel through legislation someone to want to have a child.

[/quote] I never wanted to. I'm saying you shouldn't limit the possibility of having children through artificial birth control.

Quote:

Both candidates support ending "potential human life". It's just some candidates want to perform scientific research with the stem-cells, whereas Bush wants to just throw them in the trash. All the research that would be done would be done on stem-cells that were otherwise to be thrown away.

[/QUOTE] Umm... Bush is an idiot if he wants to do that -- wasting it is probably worse than experimenting.
However, I believe it shouldn't even be done to begin with, because they destroy the undeveloped babies.

Overall, I believe Bush is the lesser of the two evils.

Why not? People are going to have sex with people to whom they aren't married; there's no way to stop that.



I wouldn't encourage abortion, either, however I understand that other people feel differently and they should be able to have one, if they feel it to be necessary. Someone who wants an abortion obviously doesn't want the child, and it's better to end the life before it becomes self-aware and more than a bunch of cells stuck together, rather than telling your kid 15 years on, "I would have had you aborted if it were legal!" in a fit of rage.



Why? We have enough people on the planet as it is.



You want to ban all people from ever trying to avoid having children? Why? Again, there are more than enough people already. Having children should be a person's choice.

I agree, there's no way to stop unmarried ppl from sex. There's no argument there. However, I think that they should be considering whether they want to deal with risk of children due to pregnancy or risk of guilty conscience from the abortion (according to what I've heard, many women who aborted their children later wished they hadn't done so -- this is why I really encourage thinking ahead in this area -- "what are the consequences you are willing to deal with?")
After thinking about it, it seems that abortion helps keep things in balace.
If none of the abortions in the past ## years took place, we actually might be very strapped for living space
But right now, we aren't all that crowded. There's still room to expand.

Yeah, those kinds of attacks are quite hurtful. My mom called me a son of a ***** once... well, you can finish the story...
But still, anyone would be glad to know that their mom ultimately decided not to abort them.
It also feels good to know that though some people do tolerate (<<<sorry, can't find an accurate word) abortion, they don't necessarily encourage it. I guess you don't usually stand out too much if you're in the middle...
"OMQ, he's like, a ppl-hugger! He doesn't want us to chop up the precious ppl" [/lame modification of a reaction to tree huggers :p]

Having children IS a person's choice -- it's the same choice to have sex. If you're going to do that, be prepared to deal with the results.
If you really don't want children or something, jeez, use Natural Family Planning. Not like it's gonna kill you to not have sex until a certain time. While it IS birth control, it is not the unnatural type. And it leaves the possibility that children may result, just that the odds are dimmed (increased). NFP is one of the hard areas for me to support because it is rather similar to artificial b.ctrl., with the only clear contrast being that one is manufactured (or such), while the other could have been done before any technoligocal development (and is all natural).

This will probably be my last post on this thread, unless I have something else significant to say. I appreciate that this hasn't turned into one of those flame war things. Thx.

I'm sorry, you've lost me. I don't see what gay marriage has to do with preventing children from being born any more than marrying someone who's infertile.


How do you know what sex is meant for? I don't see why there needs to be the possibility for children.


Some people want children, that's why. Marriage isn't natural either.


There are some "safe harbor" places where a mother can give birth and leave the child at the hospital. However, I don't know what adoption is or isn't like nowadays, but my guess is that it's hard for a lot of kids to find homes.


You hit the nail on the head as one good reason for abortion. The woman often has to take the burden for something she's only half responsible for. It's a major strain on young couples, for a young single mother, it's devastating.


Again, what about condoms?
You wouldn't happen to be Catholic, would you? I'm just curious, I have nothing against Catholics.


While we're talking about human life, Bush has a reputation for being very liberal (and I don't mean in the political sense) with using the death penalty.


You don't have to accept abortion just because it helps keep us from being overpopulated. I think it's our increase in technology. People are living longer and surviving worse things than ever. Are we going to deny people the help? Of course not, that would be cruel. So the growing population is inevitable.


Bill Clinton said something like this: "I think abortion should be legal, safe, and rare". I agree. I don't think he was exactly expecting it to be rare, but not allowing people to have abortions won't bring that about.
But in a better world, they would be more rare.


Those damn commie people huggers, they want to outlaw serial killers!


If only it was that easy. Sometimes men pressure women into having sex (sometimes women do the same to men, to be fair). There is of course rape, but even if there isn't women can be coerced into sex.

Wow, I've already disproved my statement at the end of my last post
Sorry there's no quotes -- I'm lazy and also gotta go to bed. I'm sure you can figure it out though.

Yeah, I'm Catholic. With a die-hard catholic mom, and a (supposedly) die-hard catholic (*****) principal *.
And being surrounded by such people I have only heard of why I shouldn't vote for Kerry and should for Bush. They say nothing about the death penalty anymore, or frozen embryos, or any other important stuff -- just that Kerry is like anti human life and stuff (really lame description right there )

* - she downplays us and essentially says we (not her, because God is the center of her life and she knows more than we do) are all horrible sinners on the path to hell... praise the lord she's not my teacher anymore

And, like I said, the NFP is hard to defend because it's almost just like using condoms. Anyway, it seems I'm better at coming up with arguments to oppose my beliefs than to defend them -- every defense I think of, I think of two attacks. Stupid hydra effect

Now, I'd be willing to accept limited abortion (I tend to compromise and take a good deal when it shows), hopefully to the point where it actually IS used for sound medical reasons (which, according to my social justoce text, most are not). However, it just irks me knowing that he wants to pull out all the restrictions on it. As if it isn't pretty much unlimited already

About the gay marriage:
same sex couples cannot have children. infertile couples could, had they not been infertile (lack of better wording is apparent). Gays never could have children with their own sex, not conventionally anyway (sure, adoption, I said it was good -- but do you really want two dads/moms and none of the other? I wouldn't, personally).

I'm basing what I'm saying on what I've been taught -- that sex was created primarily for procreation. It's second use is an extension of love between two devoted partners (note devoted). And this is why it makes sense that sex should be open to creation of children. There's my (teacher's) logic for ya.

Do you go to a Catholic school? I doubt their "social justice" textbook would be exactly un-biased there.

Have a poke around on google; I'm sure it would be more illuminating, since I'm not exactly familiar with it myself.

What is "natural family planning"? Just not having sex? The problem with abstinence is that it just doesn't work. Condoms do.

Yeah, Catholic school. Quite possibly biased text.

Right now, we're on bioethics. Ethics, according to the book, is using human reason without religious influence to develop morality (inexact wording). However, we need to check with the Church to see if it's okay, so it kinda seems to fall in on itself... or I'm missing something.

And abstinence is quite difficult, I'm obliged to agree. That's why I could never be a priest...
Some of my friends were talking last night about it, nad one of them is like: "No, I could never keep the celibasy thing.......[later, as priest] dear God I masturbated 7 times today... :p"

To see if what's okay?

The results for morality that we come up with.

My point is, that if it's not church-influenced, why are we checking it? You can't say that if it's not that way.

I have strong political beliefs, but I try to avoid the partisan bickering that has engulfed our nation. We're on the cusp of a century that could yield the greatest advancement of humanity in the history of the world, and yet we argue over petty differences. The problem in America today, is that in the past 20 years, we have truly emerged as the strongest country in the world, the last superpower. In these years, a culture of self has overwhelmed us. So much worth is placed on your own beliefs, that you can't accept anyone elses as valid. I hope for an America where all people can be truly united. People will always have differing opinions, and it is in these differences that progress is wrought. But the problem is that nobody will accept any ideas other than ones in tandem with their own. It takes strenth and fortitude to hold your ideals true, but the true test of strength comes with compromise. I dream of an America where nobody fights over politics, where ad hominem arguments are a thing of the past. Political threads are a sad microcosm for America. People on both sides of the fence fight and swear, and tear each other down, throwing virtual blows across the Internet. Few people want to have a rational discussion of ideas, because they simply don't care. They care for nothing but themselves, and until this is resolved, true American progress will halt.


Edit- Forgot to actually state my beliefs

Civil Rights- I'm for certain parts of the Patriot Act, mainly about resolving the rift between the different agencies. I don't support the parts of it which allow unwarrented wiretaps, secret detention, etc.

Gay Rights- Totally for it. Nobody can define love, poets have been trying to do it forever, and if they can't find the words, there's no way a bunch of rich old white men can.

War In Iraq- I don't support it, I think intellegence was really bungled on this one. I also believe that Bush rushed us into the war, without considering both the diplomatic and military ramifications.

Health Care- I think everyone in America has the right to free medical treatment.

Abortion- I believe it is a women's right to choose. I personally find the practice wrong, but I wouldn't want to force someone to use a hanger to accomplish the task. Nor should a woman have to live with the pain of childbirth or the stigma of being an unmarried mother.

Comforting to see a (more or less) true progressive Liberal, instead of all the Republicrat bull****. I've been inspired to post a far larger range of my opinions, but somewhat abridged (instead of a whole post per section)

• War In Iraq: It was a big mistake, personally. On this, I agree with Kerry. However, it upsets me what Bush keep claiming about Kerry; he hopes people don't realize Kerry's message is "Iraq was a mistake, and we need to make a policy (not action) turn-arround to make this a winning situation". It is quite clear tat Saddam posed no threat to any other nation since 1991 (despite what the most recent report says, which I think to be a "compromise" between Bush-ism and the truth), and somebody in the Bush administration modified the intelligence reports (possibly Dick Cheney, but my money's on Paul Wolfowitz, who's been waiting to put troops back in Iraq since 1991). Despite waht Bush says about the coalition the US IS virtually going it alone; second place is the UK, with less than 10% of the coalition. Third is mercenaries from corporations such as Haliburton. Recent news reports suggest that Bush's much-touted Poland is considering pulling out as well. The US is only 25% of the world's economic power and military manpower, 50% of the world's total military might. I think that the rest of the world's stake in Iraq should be greater than arround 10%; admitting a mistake on Iraq and asking for help from the major powers (such as Russia) would greatly help out here.
• USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: The USA PATRIOT Act was the Neo-fascists' dream come true; they've had it in the works for decades. Contrary to popular claims, it does not provide much clear connection between key anti-terrorism agencies, merely giving a blank search warrent to all law enforcement officials, since the crime of "terrorism" as listed in the Act labels us all as felons, even including Colin Powell! (Cheney would be considered the strongest terrorist under the Act). I think this is a clear signal that something's quite wrong with it. The SAFE act is a near-perfect cure to protect American rights, while retaining all of the relevant teeth for law enforcement to track and hunt terrorists. BTW, the best act for coordinating anti-terror intelligence was the Homeland Security Act, of 2002, which created the Department of Homeland Security, a good move that would've prevented 9/11, had Bush not been against it early in his term.
• Health Care: I do think it is quite time that the USA implemented a "socialised" health care, such as Canada's (mentioned in my sig, btw, from one of my favorite TV shows). I don't think the entire health field should be state-run, but I think a nationalized health insurance business would be helpful. Insurance is normally a VERY high-profit business (presuming you have a base large enough to mitigate collection risks), so by cutting profits, and maintaining a tax surplus to eliminate the danger of the risks involved in such a business, I see that the US could have a single, highly affordable form of health insurance, that even members of the working class would have no problem affording, and middle class members would get amazazing coverage, and never have to worry about earning enough to pay for it.
• Homosexual rights: I have studdied this topic philsophically extensively for years, and I have yet to find a single, solid reason (secular or religeous) that states the homosexuality is wrong. I'd prefer not to go into too much depth about how questionable it is to claim that some parts of the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin (and remember, in any translation I've seen, it also explicitly stated that lending money was sinful as well, and I beleive both parts here were in Leviticus). Also, there is no solid secular reason that homosexual relationships is wrong. Just because they cannot have children isn't a valid point; only a small fraction of times people have sex even result in pregnancy, and sterile couples cannot have any children at all.

Gah. I lied. I'll finish this list later, though...

No he bloody well didn't.

I'm getting quite tired of the ridiculous lies painting Saddam Hussein as evil incarnate.

You're probably referring to Halabja, in 1988. This was during the Iraq-Iran war. Halabja is a Kurdish city, and the Kurds have always opposed Saddam Hussein (the Kurdish issue is one that spans much further than Iraq, and has paralells with the Jewish struggle 50 years ago). The Kurds supported the Iranian forces entering Halabja, and helped them fight against Iraqi soldiers. It's not quite clear whether it was Iraq or Iran that launched the chemical attack, but I think it was probably Iraq. The purpose of the attack was to stop the Iranian advancement, as well as Kurdish resistance fighters.
Yes, there were civilian casulties, but the civilians were certainly not the "intended target" by any means. They were 'collateral damage'. The actual numbers is a controversial issue. The Times reported 5000, then it reported 2000, but the CIA statement reported 'hundreds'. Now, collateral damage of a few hundred to stop an advancing column of enemy troops, as well as local insurgents. Compare that to the collateral damage of several thousand when invading Iraq, only to discover that the Iraqi army didn't really want to fight anyway. For Bush, this is unfortunate but acceptable. For Saddam Hussein, this is genocide.
You shouldn't assume that Saddam Hussein is definitely "guilty as charged", as the issue is certainly a grey area. The charge of 'genocide' is frankly ridiculous. Yes, he killed a large number of Kurds, but not because they were Kurdish, but because they were insurgents. The Kurds have never really been "his people".

And anyway, this was 1988. If this was a sensible reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it would have been done during the first (or second, depending on where you start counting from) gulf war. Then, it would have been relevant. It isn't now.

I really wish people would try to keep a more open mind about Saddam Hussein, and not just blindly accept all the accusations thrown at him.


Also, congratulatins to Freelancer for a very interesting thread. This is way more informative than anything in other threads. The brightly coloured headings work really well.

why do you hate america

Darth Slaw, I'm gonna talk to you as one christian to another. It sounds like you've grown up in a conservative catholic environment and are starting to reexamine your beliefs. I don't like extreme conservatism mixed with christianity. Not all Catholics believe what you were taught, and you don't have to feel bad about reconsidering what you've been taught.
It also doesn't mean you have to become a liberal or anything, changing some beliefs doesn't mean you have to change them all.


I agree with you about that last part. People like that are bad and do more harm than good. Trust me, the bible says nothing like what she says. Her words are poisonous.


I know it's a catholic belief that all birth control is bad, but there's really nothing in the bible to support it.


What you've been taught is wrong. Sex was created just as much for enjoyment as for having children. The book Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs), shows just how much sex was created for people to enjoy.


Again, I'd say that the catholics you go to church with are too conservative. Trust me, the catholic church isn't right all the time, and not everything applies to everyone the same way.


There is actually some dispute now whether the bible actually condemned homosexuality, especially in the NT. If you were to look in the Greek text, Paul's word choice for it is strange. Plus the concept of homosexuality didn't even exist back then.


You have a point, but Bush didn't use anything as nasty as chemical weapons. Plus the fact that he gave his sons free reign shows that he was still a pretty bad guy.

I feel like sitting, refreshing this page over and over again, until Obi_Kwiet posts again. It's amazing.

Heh heh...

Probably partly why it isn't an infallable teaching of the pope either.

You know, I just remembered that later, he (the teacher) told us that we should enjoy sex while we can (not exact wording) (we were all surpised to hear him say this, compared to the previous things he has taught us). I remember writing down in my notebook "ENJOY SEX, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!" (I get such a kick out of the way I worded it -- it just seems so contrary to the abstinence belief)

*cough*new bumper sticker*cough* :p

actually, the church I go to tends to be more liberal. My mom is the conservative one, as is the principal, but there's one MAJOR difference -- no one hates my mom

Effectively what I was trying to get at. Another interesting thing to note is that while "gay" sex did exist back then, it was part of Pagan rituals, not a real loving relationship. Thus, it would make sense for the Bible to condemn Pagan rituals by condemning same-gender sexual intercourse.


I personally believe that depleted uranium rounds (which are poisonous and fairly radioactive) are just as bad as some chemical weapons. While the DU itself may not kill as quickly as Sarin or VX (though the bullet flying through the air is another matter), rain can erode any spent ammunition, and poison the water flow, as well as contaminatig the land. Also, it is now a widely accepted fact that Saddam didn't have any sort of WMDs since 1991. Were we to truthfuly remove him on charges of WMDs, it should've been done well over a decade ago, not after Saddam's power has had 13 years to decay, leaving him little more than a weak and petty tyrant, only about as bad a simple serial killer, not a true international threat.

Indeed. I read an article that listed the approved interogation methods used by the US military and nearly all of what was being done at Abu Gharib was not over the line. There were a few instances where individuals crossed the line. Those individuals should be punished for breakng the rules. Simple as that. It was not a case of every single prisoner being grossly mistreated.

Also worth noting is that the vast majority of the Kurdish civilians died from gunshot wounds, being caught in the crossfire.

At any rate, Paul ain't Jesus. Secondly, wasn't he the misogynistic ******* who was a "reformed" murderer? Like his word is worth anything on what's "good".



That's worse... Torture is a legitimate "interrogation" tactic now?

Oh, well then, your principal is just strange.


Interesting, I never heard of that. I always assumed it was just perverted straight people.


Right, I forgot about the cluster bombs. Those are nasty.


The conditions allowed that to happen pretty easily. There wasn't much of a chain of command there.


For some people what Paul said is very important. He did kill christians before he became one himself.
Misogynistic is just what it looks like due to the cultural difference, I think. When he said that women had to have long hair, it was because pagan women had to serve as prostitutes, and when they did, they cut their hair really short. If other women were to have short hair, they'd be seen as prostitutes.
It should also be noted that what Paul wrote was to specific churches, and not necessarily for everyone.
BTW, they had a really excellent discussion about what Paul meant about homosexuality at the SDMB. I could dig up a link if you're interested.


They use some pretty horrifying methods too.
Sleep deprivation, exhaustion, bright lights, loud music, intimidation by using dogs. The kind that is just as bad as physical pain torture, except this kind won't leave visible marks.
The people in Abu Gharib weren't all terrorists either, a lot of them were picked up off the streets. That first guy that got beheaded (I think his name was Nick Berg) spent some time either there or in a similar prison.