Printable View
This straight in from CNN<br><br>U.S. forces have captured former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, U.S civil administrator L. Paul Bremer announced today. "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him," Bremer told a cheering crowd at a news conference in Baghdad.<br><br>Happy Independance Day Iraq!
Nothing but good news, thank God.
Now perhaps the attacks on our troops and Iraqi citizens will slow down.
I watched the video on Fox News.com, the Iraqi press were freaking when they announced it at the press conference in Bagdhad, and they really freaked when the first video of Saddam captured was shown.
I hope the UN, the US, and the rest of the world lets the local lawyers and judges handle the trial. They do have the death penalty in Iraq.
Who cares? So, the US has captured the two-bit dictator they kept in power for years. It isn't going to stop people from dying over there. The US media seems to be under the impression that all the people fighting against the occupying troops in Iraq are Saddam loyalists. It hasn't occured to them they might just be patriots fighting against an invading force.
Im in agreement with QIbHom. The media said the same thing when we though he was killed in the bombing. Nothing change, in fact it got worse.
It will be many many years till the hatred towards the US goes away.
AND..the stated intent of the invasion was that Hussein had WMD "ready in 45 minutes".
Well..no WMD, no Al-Qaeda links. The administration admitted it doesn't even matter now that there are now WMD destruction .. since nobody remembers why they invaded anyway. The oil is flowing and that is what is most important to Bush..along with Haliburton and Bechtel getting juicy contracts.
A fake DNA match is a piece of cake to manufacture so who's to say they even got him?
1984 came and went. Nobody remembers anything these days.
Indeed:
The whole war was engineered by the administration as a reason to get oil. Sure, theres weapons of mass destribution there! Sure, hes a terrorist! Sure, Osama Bin Laden performed the attack, but Hussein's name is similar!Quote:
From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Great excuse for an oil man to get his buddies rich.
Not saying good things havent come out of the war. But it shouldnt have happened to begin with.
I always find it funny how hypocritical the US is (well, every country, but I live in the US). We go to war with Iraq because of WMD, and yet I could bet you anything that the US has stockpiles far larger, and far more deadly.
Anyone read The Stand by Steven King? ;)
Or Brave New World, 1984, We, Anthem? Yup, its happening.
Now that S. Hussein has been captured, maybe we'll be able to start doing what's really important......bringing our folks home where they belong.
Iraq has broken down into an almost anarchic state. The occupying forces of the West are trying to clean up a collossally mismanaged and poorly executed "war".
The US and others never seem to realise that the people they go into liberate will almost instantaneously turn on their "liberators" once the dictators grip has gone.
Countless times through history the same thing has happened.
Whilst the "natives" now have far better arsenals with which to tout their guerilla warfare.
There really must be so many simpletons in the wrong jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.
And what truly sickens me is that they try to sugar coat it with lies and deceit to an overwhelmingly apathetic populace that think freedom is the right to say nothing and do nothing as long as they have their home comforts.
The only thing that wakes these people out of their dream world is their sons and daughters coming home in body bags.
Tragedy fueled by greed
^^^^
^^^
^^
^
/shakes head and sighs with sadness....
This is both good and bad. It's good, because they got rid of a suspected "terrorist", and are helping to clean up a country wracked by problems. It's bad because this gives the "administration" clout with other countries. It's now shown that we "accomplished" a goal that we set out to do.
Unfortunately, as you may have noticed this morning, they increased the terror level, in fears that reparations will be coming (which have not, as of yet). What does this mean? We've just pissed off even more people than before. We've become the bully of bullies. And while many people think this is a good thing (removing a dictatorship from power forcefully), others (myself included) think that we've just made a terrible mistake in doing so.
But I'm just a lowly taxpayer...
Are the human beings who live in Iraq better off with Saddam in US custody?
Are neighboring nations better off since his regime was taken down?
Are Iraqis better off with the ability to choose freedom? The answer is Yes.
As to whether or not hatred against the US will increase or decrease because of this, that's not an issue. World economic stability and human freedom are the issues. Nothing of value would occur if someone somewhere objects.
My eyes are on the Bush administration. Will they give the greed/imperialist/international cooperation wackos something to say by staying forever with troops, or will they do what they said they'd do? Will they pull out once a stable government and reliable security forces are established? We'll see. And you wackos out there, you be paying attention too. You may just lose a little cynicism when Bush does what he said he'd do.
Hear hear!Quote:
Originally posted by The Shaman
Now that S. Hussein has been captured, maybe we'll be able to start doing what's really important......bringing our folks home where they belong.
This should be the Government's primary objective, now that Saddam is captured.
:thumbs:
I've got a couple of opinions about the whole Iraq thing. First, I suspect that the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq for a variety of reasons. Not simply because of WMDs, but not just for oil, either. People who claim one reason or the other as absolute are being naive.
Once they decided to make a move against Iraq, they knew they had to sell it. They did this primarily through the threat of WMDs. The case that they put forth was probably exaggerated, but then nearly every claim made by a political figure is either exaggerated or, at the very least, phrased in a way that is intended to make it support that figure's stance on the issue in question. It seems likely that the Bush administration felt like there was a real threat, but had no good gauge on the size or immediacy of the threat. The analysts provided a spectrum of possibilites based on the intelligence available and the Bush administration used the worst case scenarios for their attempt to sell the attack. I doubt that they blatantly lied to us. I don't doubt that they knowingly gave us only the worst possibilities presented by the intelligence available.
Having said all that, let me also say that none of it really matters anymore. The fact of the matter is that we've seized the country and removed Hussein from power. Having been in Iraq during the first Gulf War, I think that's a good thing, regardless of the administration's stated reasons for doing it.
I was an infantry paratrooper in the 82d Airborne Division. It's why I now live in North Carolina just outside of Fort Bragg. I just never left after I got out of the service. I worry about 'the troops' as much as anyone, believe me. Several of my friends and buddies from my old unit are over there now. Some have been injured, at least one is dead. Still, I don't think it's time for us to be bringing troops back just yet. Pulling out now would be throwing away all that we've accomplished so far. People like to point out that Iraq is in chaos, they say that it's too dangerous to have our soldiers there. Can you imagine what it'd be like without us there trying to hold things together?
I want to see my buddies come home. I know that they want to come home. I also know that most of them don't want to leave the job half finished. If we do, and Iraq slides back into the kind of tyranny that we've seen in the past, then we really will have failed, no matter what the original reason was for going. At this point, I'd say that we owe the Iraqi people something. We're responsible for the upheaval in their country and we need to do everything that we can to get them back on their feet.
I'm glad that we caught Saddam and I hope that his capture helps to bring the end of our time in Iraq a little closer. I'm disappointed that Bush & his gang stretched the truth about things like they did, but as I said before, I've seen Iraq and Saddam's removal from power is enough of a good thing that I can probably forgive Bush for his over zealous use of questionable intelligence. If, however, American political maneuvering, liberal activists, outspoken Hollywood celebrities, or even just well meaning concern for our troops manages to bring us back before it's time, then I'll be sorely disappointed in both Bush and American behaviour in general.
^ once again... Dyyryath provides a voice of reason.
:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy
So Cyg..
1. Reasonable because his views don't completely diverge from yours?
2. So anyone who disagrees with your view is "unreasonable"?
3. I hear it alot that people who don't agree with the current Administration are somehow "suspect" or "wrong" or "unpatriotic". Bush himself even stated "if you're not with us, you're against us". And THAT is a reasonable statement for the President of the United States to make? No..it's not.
You know I'm your friend, just asking because I'm perfectly reasonable..I just have an opinion that differs from yours. :thumbs:
:cheers:
Well, I'm happy because it may mean my son, who has been in downtown Baghdad for the past 6 months, may get to come home earlier.
And for all the others that have family over there.
Actually, I hope he means that I have an open-minded, middle of the road opinion. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Chinasaur
So Cyg..
1. Reasonable because his views don't completely diverge from yours?
2. So anyone who disagrees with your view is "unreasonable"?
3. I hear it alot that people who don't agree with the current Administration are somehow "suspect" or "wrong" or "unpatriotic". Bush himself even stated "if you're not with us, you're against us". And THAT is a reasonable statement for the President of the United States to make? No..it's not.
You know I'm your friend, just asking because I'm perfectly reasonable..I just have an opinion that differs from yours. :thumbs:
:cheers:
It's funny, I'm rarely in agreement with any given 'group' on anything. If I had to pick a one, I'd probably classify myself as a republican, but that's probably not accurate. I could be considered staunchly democratic on several issues. Personally, I find the whole idea of political parties troublesome.
At any rate, I seem to gravitate toward the middle of the ground in any argument. Bush is a good example. I don't have any particularly strong opinions about him one way or the other. I disagree with some of the things he does (leanings toward big business and his dealings with the environment) and agree with others (use of military force against terrorism). Some things, like his handling of the economy, I'm still undecided on. I don't think he's handled Afghanistan & Iraq as well as he could have, but I do think he's done it better than many others might have.
In just about every issue I can find validity in both sides of the argument, which hopefully keeps me on an even keel.
Of course, cygnussphere could just think that I kick ass. :D :D
At least you're Airborne brother :thumbs:
9th ID, 24th Reg - Anything, Anytime, Anywhere-Bar None
can come home sooner rather than later but I suspect they will be there in the long term is more realistic.
Whether as part of the coalition or more fully under a UN banner.
I don't see many countries wanting to stump up the millions it costs to keep troops overseas.
It's going to take a lot of money and time, which will be too long for some.
Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in, not to stir up trouble or anything. I agree a lot with what Dyyryath put in the pool. A lot that I wanted to add in here but didn't (for the sake of avoiding any tensions on the board), but since we're all at it...
It seems to me that a lot of people are quick to criticize and dwell on the past (that's ok, it's their opinions). I think what's most important now is that they DID catch Saddam Hussein. I know a lot say that it does no good when a good portion of the resistance isn't just Saddam loyalist, but more or less related to the "Jihad war". I've talked with many people from that area of the world and from what I've been told, these skirmishes between the Jihad and other civilizations date back in the B.C. era. Catching Saddam will not solve these problems.
You are all right, I'm sure Bush did use quite a few "short cuts" to get the war effort rolling. Maybe Saddam was not immediate threat, maybe he has no biological weapons, but in the end he IS a threat to his own people. If it was up to me, everyone would stop arguing over what is right and what is wrong and just be happy for the Iraqis. So the administration probably has it's own agendas for the battle, but think of what this war did for millions of civilians in Iraq. They are free. I for one am very proud that the Iraqis are able to taste freedom again after 30 years of control from Saddam. Their lives may be changed forever, because of this war. They may not like us (what's new, who does) but they will love their freedom and I think that should be reward enough for the efforts that were put out by our troops.
If we had it to do all over again, I for one would still support it. Generations of Iraqis will greatly benefit for what was done over the last year. Who know, maybe it will send a message to the Arab world that we aren't the bad guys.......
Merry christmas to the troops of all 30 countries that are participating in this effort! :thumbs:
--------------------
This was not directed towards anyone's views above, but just a vague attempt to get my views out there.
your right they are still goin to deploy my ass to iraq... those bastardsQuote:
Originally posted by QIbHom
Who cares? So, the US has captured the two-bit dictator they kept in power for years. It isn't going to stop people from dying over there. The US media seems to be under the impression that all the people fighting against the occupying troops in Iraq are Saddam loyalists. It hasn't occured to them they might just be patriots fighting against an invading force.
It will take many months/years to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. In the meantime whoever is preserving the peace is going to get shot at.
I don't know if you guys remember but just after world war 1 the allies stiffed the arabs who fought valiantly on our side and ripped them off of some of their most treasured lands.
Now that sort of betrayal isn't going to endear anyone to The West.
Now no-one could say Saddam ruled well, but sanctions from the west reduced the majority of Iraqis from having THE best standard of living in that area to near paupers. I am sure they won't forget that either.
The coalition bombed the hell out of many cities, probably much more than was reported back to us in our sanitised environment.
You add up all the times that the western imperialist forces have shat on the arab people (many more times than I know for sure) then you get a whole lot of resentment going back generations.
So currently while the Iraqi people are scrabbling around in an anarchic situation where the imperialists seem to be dividing up the spoils yet again, I ask you do you think they should be happy?
I just hope Bush et al can pull this one back from the brink, and get Iraq run and policed by Iraq and all our troops and personnel home.
With all do respect for my good friend, DC colleague and all around good human Chinasaur. My support of Dyy's statements were not just in opposition to yours but to QIbHom's, excaliber's and Fozzie's as well. I don't know them but I do know you and we already know that our opinions differ but our hearts do not. We both want the same thing for humans but do not see the same path. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Chinasaur
So Cyg..
1. Reasonable because his views don't completely diverge from yours?
2. So anyone who disagrees with your view is "unreasonable"?
3. I hear it alot that people who don't agree with the current Administration are somehow "suspect" or "wrong" or "unpatriotic". Bush himself even stated "if you're not with us, you're against us". And THAT is a reasonable statement for the President of the United States to make? No..it's not.
You know I'm your friend, just asking because I'm perfectly reasonable..I just have an opinion that differs from yours. :thumbs:
:cheers:
1. Reasonable because the views are not one sided.
2. Anyone that doesn't make a sincere effort to step back and look at both sides of the "Big Picture" is "Unreasonable"
3. You won't hear that from me. But, with regards to the quoted statement and its context
"If you're not with us, you're against us"
My interpretation is...
If you're not with the effort to irradiate the planet of the pure evil that murdered 2000+ citizens of this planet on 911... Murdered, tortured and raped 100's of thousands in Iraq... brutally oppressed the people of Afghanistan, The list goes on and on.
Not only are you against it but you're serving as an unwitting pawn of that very evil.
You may disagree with how to go about doing it but I don't believe for one second anyone here is against stopping the spread of evil.
Evil can not be negotiated with.. It can not be reasoned with... It can only be suppressed by destroying those who would perpetuate it and until humans evolve beyond the influence of evil we are destined to combat it. Will this ever happen...? Certainly not if humans don't try!
Say what you will about his motives, it's your right, But, I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt and I think that the President it trying. Time will tell and history will be interpreted.
:cheers:
Who gets to set the definition of who or what is evil?Quote:
You may disagree with how to go about doing it but I don't believe for one second anyone here is against stopping the spread of evil.
Perhaps.... but you should try negotiation and reason first, don't you think?Quote:
Evil can not be negotiated with.. It can not be reasoned with... It can only be suppressed by destroying those who would perpetuate it ....
While exact definitions may be difficult, most humans can agree on a general one. We may get caught up in the particulars which can vary from culture to culture, but if you ask humans pretty much anywhere if murder (for example) is acceptable, they'll tell you no. We may bicker over things like religion and customs, but ultimately most people could agree on the more egregious examples of human behaviour. Call it 'evil', call it whatever you'd like, but people tend to recognize it when they see it.
As for negotiation, I'd say yes, if you can convince someone 'evil' to change through reason, then by all means do so. War will always cost lives. It's occasional necessity is a poor reflection on humanity as a whole. Reason should always be attempted first, leaving force as a last resort. Unfortunately, the application of reason generally requires reasonable people and the evil ones almost never are.
Pretty much what I ment and you do in fact kick ass!Quote:
Originally posted by Dyyryath
Actually, I hope he means that I have an open-minded, middle of the road opinion. :)
It's funny, I'm rarely in agreement with any given 'group' on anything. If I had to pick a one, I'd probably classify myself as a republican, but that's probably not accurate. I could be considered staunchly democratic on several issues. Personally, I find the whole idea of political parties troublesome.
At any rate, I seem to gravitate toward the middle of the ground in any argument. Bush is a good example. I don't have any particularly strong opinions about him one way or the other. I disagree with some of the things he does (leanings toward big business and his dealings with the environment) and agree with others (use of military force against terrorism). Some things, like his handling of the economy, I'm still undecided on. I don't think he's handled Afghanistan & Iraq as well as he could have, but I do think he's done it better than many others might have.
In just about every issue I can find validity in both sides of the argument, which hopefully keeps me on an even keel.
Of course, cygnussphere could just think that I kick ass. :D :D
:tempted:
:evil:
:cheers:
Who or what is evil? No need to get into metaphysics. Just name a court on earth where murder, torture, rape, using airliners as WMDs, tyranny, and brutal oppression are legal. The nations generally agree that those things are illegal, moral questions aside.
Negotiation? a dozen UN resolutions, weapons inspectors, special envoys, saber rattling speeches on both sides of the Atlantic, multiple deadlines to comply. American intentions were very clear before shots were fired.
But shots were fired. It's a shame it came to that. The bible tells me that generally war is a bad thing, to be avoided, and those who instigate it are violating precepts of peace and risking God's wrath. On the other hand, in certain circumstances, the Lord commands his people to conquer, sparing no one and nothing. Even the Persians were instruments of the Lord to punish the Israelites in battle and take them captive when they were disobedient to God.
So Bush and his intelligence apparatus apparently made the best decision they could, considering what they had to work with, and with other long term goals in mind. Such as economic stability (oil) and the potential value to the middle east of a possible democracy there, rather than a tyranny or a theocracy. Again, those who want to condemn Bush for nasty ulterior motives, let's watch how things unfold. The road will be very rocky, and much blood may yet be spilled, but the next regime in Iraq may just bring opportunities for good to the people there, and in turn help create a less volitile middle east.
Who Indeed! But as Dyyryath has stated I think we can agree that the murder, torcher and rape of our fellow humans is the result of the influence of evil.Quote:
Originally posted by rshepard
Who gets to set the definition of who or what is evil?
I believe that you can reason and negotiate with humans that are under the influence of evil but not those consumed buy it. Genocidal mass murders and their minions are consumed buy its influence.Quote:
Originally posted by rshepard
Perhaps.... but you should try negotiation and reason first, don't you think?
Thats my belief.
Oh, I agree- as individuals, I think we'd all come up with pretty much the same concept of what is or isn't evil. What I take exception to is the idea of characterizing some leader or nation as "evil" and using that as justification for a war (or any other political action). And I take special exception to the suggestion that if I don't agree with that particular justification, then I must be in some way "evil" as well.Quote:
Call it 'evil', call it whatever you'd like, but people tend to recognize it when they see it.
Cygnussphere wrote:
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. He was a secular dictator, hated by Osama bin Laden and his group.Quote:
If you're not with the effort to irradiate the planet of the pure evil that murdered 2000+ citizens of this planet on 911... Murdered, tortured and raped 100's of thousands in Iraq... brutally oppressed the people of Afghanistan, The list goes on and on.
The Taliban was evil. It was also funded, armed and trained by the US during the Soviet occupation. As was Osama bin Laden.
Saddam Hussein, like Manuel Noriega, like Papa Doc Duvalier and many other dictators funded by the US, was a right bastard. But, until the US also cleans up Somalia (an al Qaida stronghold), Nigeria, Pakistan, Cambodia, Columbia, Zimbabwe and other countries suffering under brutal dictators, I don't buy the argument that the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan for strictly humanitarian and anti-terrorist reasons.
Cygnussphere, I wore the uniform (in an MI unit, actually). I was willing to go and to fight at the command of my commander in chief. And I am very glad that I'm not in that uniform today, because the commander in chief is using the blood of our troops to help his business buddies. I am reminded of Gen. Smedley Butler's comments on why war is a racket. (Gen. Butler was the only Marine to win the Congressional Medal of Honour twice. He is well worth looking up.)
Unlike Dyryyath, I do believe the administration intensionally lied to get it's way in Iraq, although I will admit to the possibility that they were criminally stupid in how they interpreted raw intellegence data (which is the job of highly trained experts, not political hacks).
I mourn what we have become, and what is being done in the name of the American people.
We're in agreement here, at least somewhat. I don't believe for a second that any nation has ever engaged in a military action that was purely altruistic in nature. Things are always more complicated than that and nations will always try to gain advantage of some sort when dealing with other nations, whether it's geographical advantage, economic advantage, etc. That doesn't make a good end result any less of a good thing, however. Afghanistan, while far from being a stable, self-supporting country, is now on a much better track for the future than they were four years ago. Hoepfully, in a year, we'll be able to say the same thing about Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by QIbHom
The Taliban was evil. It was also funded, armed and trained by the US during the Soviet occupation. As was Osama bin Laden.
Saddam Hussein, like Manuel Noriega, like Papa Doc Duvalier and many other dictators funded by the US, was a right bastard. But, until the US also cleans up Somalia (an al Qaida stronghold), Nigeria, Pakistan, Cambodia, Columbia, Zimbabwe and other countries suffering under brutal dictators, I don't buy the argument that the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan for strictly humanitarian and anti-terrorist reasons.
WOW!
I find it hard to believe that what should be a note of good news could spark such a heated political debate. By reading what has been said here (most of which are very valid and intelligent comments) I find myself becoming all fired up and wanting to put my 2 cents in. Over the last few hours I have had enough thoughts (as I am sure most of you have) that I could write an entire book on them. However, I will spare you my political/philosophical/socio-economic/theological points of view. What I do think should not be overlooked is that for the most part it is too late in the game to be protesting our occupation of Iraq. What is most important now, the greatest thing we can do whether we agree with the reasoning or not is to unwaveringly stand up behind our troops and support them with every ounce of energy that we have. Many have stood up at every opportunity in this country since the onset and voiced their opposition or support arguments. I wonder how the troops feel about the unrest back home about them following their orders. I can't see how it would not affect their moral. Not only are they under the stress of knowing that they may not come back any given day, or if so when they will see their loved ones again. Whether President Bush went to Iraq on Thanksgiving to spend time with the troops was a media ploy or a sincere gesture, WHO CARES? Ask any of the soldiers and I bet they will tell you that it meant a great deal to them. I have not heard any comments by anyone of them there that said they were against it and I for one believe they know more about what it is like there than anyone. (There probably have been but everything we here is filtered throught the media so it is about as reliable as a used car salesman most times) It seems to me that we all want the same result. We want it over, and we want our troops home. I do however want them to return fully believing that they did all they could do and that they did it with excellence. Unlike the soldiers from Viet Nam that many felt like they were there fighting for wrong reasons, with no support, told to do a job and then pulled out before they could finish it. I have more respect for no one than our soldiers. Personally, they need to be held high. Does anyone remember the millions of US dollars that were discovered in the bunkers? What ever happened to all that money? Wouldn't it have been nice (especially since we didn't even know it was missing) to just divide it up amongst all the men and women serving over there as a bonus? (Yeah, like that is even conceivable) I will never voice any negativity to any of them about their business in Iraq. They will never hear anything but support from me. And I see the capture of Saddam as on of the major tasks now completed and the end of the occupation is that much closer. I for one am pleased he is in custody.
(Everyone is entitled to my opinion)
GODSPEED troops! We are proud of you! Come home soon and safely.
By the way, I purposely never start new paragraphs and am a real fan of run-on sentences.
On another note, was there anyone else out there that couldn't help but laugh when they saw the hole they pulled him out of. All I could think about was "it puts the Joe Dirt in the hole." or "it puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again" I know, I know, I am warped like that. I just had a mental image of him sitting there reading Auto Trader
LOL :rotfl:Quote:
Originally posted by RacerX
By the way, I purposely never start new paragraphs and am a real fan of run-on sentences.
About half way through I was thinking, "PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEONE GET THIS GUY AN ENTER KEY!" :D
Just wondering where you read this. In mine Jesus said "I did not come to bring peace. Rather, a sword. "Quote:
Originally posted by tim
But shots were fired. It's a shame it came to that. The bible tells me that generally war is a bad thing, to be avoided, and those who instigate it are violating precepts of peace and risking God's wrath.
Also he says later "The kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and the violent shall take it by force. "
I thought that it was important since it was written in red
Couldn't help it, that ministry license just had to make its way to the surface.
This thread is democracy and freedom in action. Democracy is a messy business. You have to become involved in order to keep it. It is not a spectator sport.
Having an opinion on one side or the other is acceptable if you have investigated both sides and believe you have all the available facts. Then you make your decision. I've looked at the Administrations reasons and I find them specious. All presidents lie. History shows this. To believe otherwise is to reject reality.
If you think that lies were told to get us to into war with Iraq but, now that we've caught most of the bad guys (while our troops still die), everything is getting better, then you are saying the means justify the end and you've really lost. That way opens up a Pandora's box of abuse of power on a vast scale.
If standing up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, reminding people of lies told, and commenting on the increasing power in the Executive vs the Judicial and Congressional is considered an extremeist view..then so be it.
"If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything" - A cute saying but true.
"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" - George Washington
"The government does not exist to keep the citizen from error. The citizen exists to keep the government from error"
====
And because I take life too seriously -
"Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatus Nunc. We would gladly feast on those who would subdue us."
"Not just pretty words Fester"
:jester:
I personally didn't like the way Bush was 'selling' the war, in fact I still don't like the WoMS that he says are ther. They might still be hiding there, but that is neither here nor there.
After seeing some of the mass graves, I decided that there was a reason to support this war. Knowing that there are over 300,000 people sitting in mass graves in the deserts of Iraq, caused by the man who is now in custody.
But, I am really hoping all of the troops get home, safe, sound, and soon.
Steven
(like it or hate it, it is the way I feel, and I can see where many of you are coming from, but I still have my opinion)
To RacerX: check out Matthew:5:9: Blessed are the peacemakers [not the warmongers]: for they shall be called the children of God.
and Matt. 5:21-22: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (so not only is murder wrong, but being just angry)
and 5:38-48: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
(love your enemies, turn the other cheek)
He taught peace, one of his names was the Prince of Peace. I do agree that there are plenty of examples and justifications for when war is necessary. The same scriptures, as you point out, tell us those as well. I personally think that this action in Iraq is justified.
Sorry for quoting so much. I just thought it was an important point to make.
Ah.
Interesting.