State of the Union tonight...place your bets - Page 5

[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:

are you always going to be there, saying well why not here why not there.<hr></blockquote>

I should point out that you are the one that said that, not me.

[quote]
i agree that cheney's companies have already made a fortune rebuilding that part of the world, but that doesn't mean saddam hussein isn't an evil vile person, who needs to go.
<hr></blockquote>

It also should be pointed out that Halliburton, while being run by Cheney, used European subsidiaries to circumvent US imposed sanctions that barred Cheney's company from rebuilding the facilities he destroyed as Secretary of Defence. We are talking about a MAJOR conflict of interest.

In addition, this conflict has nothing to do with being the world's policeman. The current doctrine, as outlined in the Sept. 2000 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses," explicitly states that the US should act solely in its own interests when conduction foreign military operations. A summary of that report:

[quote]The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

<hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf" target="_blank">You can read the document for yourself here.</a>

I don't want to get on your case too much, but war (the loss of tens or hundereds of thousands of lives) is important enough to make sure the facts are straight.

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>

I'll have a good belly laugh when giant sees US troops unearth Saddam's nuclear program in three months.

Hey giant what ever happened to that thread where you defended the notion of OBL day care centers? Seems to have dropped off the front page?

i did say that giant, but i'm not using it as an excuse not to act in iraq, if it was my little world when we were done in iraq we would free the saudis, the iranis, the chinese, the nepalese, the nigerians (probably the worst place on earth) the cubans, etc. etc. but it just doesn't work that way.
just don't use our inaction in parts of the world where we have no commercial interests for taking care of something that we didn't start, and should have finished 12 years ago.

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: superkaratemonkeydeathcar ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:


Hey giant what ever happened to that thread where you defended the notion of OBL day care centers? <hr></blockquote>


Hmmm. Is that what I said?

[quote]Originally posted by Giant:

You have to be pretty ignorant to not know that the one of the major reasons fundamentalist Islamic groups are gaining so many followers is their devotion to social programs. Egypt is probably the best example, where the hospitals run by fundamentalist islamic groups are generations better than the government run ones. These same groups have been almost the sole providers of disaster relief. Another example is Hamas. 95% of its operations are social programs, and it is the major and almost sole provider of these programs to Palestinians....

Research it. Eqypt and Palestine are perfect examples. There is no opinion involved in this. Fact: fundamentalist Islamic groups provide the bulk of the social services in Eqypt and Palestine. Fact: in eqypt the services provided are of much higher quality than those provided by the government. I have heard this repeated by professors and journalists over and over and over again for the past year and some months in numerous lectures here at Northwestern. This is the case for most of the middle east and is the primary method by which fundamentalist islam has gained a strong following. It is also why governments in middle east countries are losing influence over their citizens. When the people feel abondoned by their government and well-funded islamic groups take their place, what do you think will happen?<hr></blockquote>

Interesting that you get nothing straight, Scott.

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
<strong> if it was my little world when we were done in iraq we would free the saudis, the iranis, the chinese, the nepalese, the nigerians (probably the worst place on earth) the cubans, etc. etc. bit it just doesn't work that way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've noticed that many folks on this board believe that they should tell others how and by whom they should be governed. Hmmm...

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>

I think there's a huge chunk of truth in SDW's post: no matter WHAT Bush does, HOW he does it, WHEN he does it, etc., it'll get dinged by people who simply a) don't dig on him b) belong to the other party c) buy into all the "Dubya is stupid" stuff d) realize they're going against type if they support a Republican, etc.

Just like Republicans and conservatives did/do with Clinton.

Yeah, I said it to save you the trouble of having to.



But I think Bush has a pretty strong case in this instance and I'm just not someone who like to "hope Saddam won't do anything foolish..." and I don't trust people who've got a horrible history of the things Hussein does. The world doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.

Good intentions and wishing really hard often don't cut it.

If all this was going on and the evidence was the same, the circumstances were identical and Mr. Clinton was President, no matter what I thought about his character and all the scandals hanging over him, I would support him 100% if he laid out as plain and forceful of a list of reasons as the President did last night.

Does hatred and mockery of Bush often override everything else to some?

I think I know the answer to this...

And it's a legit question because my hatred and mockery of Bill Clinton certainly colored my opinions and thoughts of him in all but a few scenarios and issues. But I would've loved Clinton to take this man completely out because we wouldn't be in this situation right now. It would've already have been taken care of and that would've been a pretty strong legacy feather in President Clinton's cap.

jesus giant, even when i agree with you, you give me grief.
i don't want to tell people how they should be governed, i just think they should have a voice in it. and in all those countries i mentioned the populace is oppressed. why is the jihad directed at america? solely because of our position in israel? a position we would dearly love to get out from under i might add. well that's pretty weak.
the jihad should be directed at the oppressor, but then the fundamentalists are just as oppressive as the rotten arab governments.

[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
<strong>jesus giant, even when i agree with you, you give me grief.
i don't want to tell people how they should be governed, i just think they should have a voice in it. and in all those countries i mentioned the populace is oppressed. why is the jihad directed at america? solely because of our position in israel? a position we would dearly love to get out from under i might add. well that's pretty weak.
the jihad should be directed at the oppressor, but then the fundamentalists are just as oppressive as the rotten arab governments.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry. I'm not trying to give you grief.

I agree with what you say here.

I agree that we should have a voice and be a leader in the movement toward freedom.

the enemy is ignorance, but it's evasive, and you can't drop bombs on it, you can only shine a light on it.
maybe some day every one will have a voice, the voice to dissent, a voice to SING (like they can in kabul, again), and a voice to type little stupid ideas into a silly forum like this.
maybe someday, enshallah.

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: superkaratemonkeydeathcar ]</p>

This is slightly off topic, but a question if I may.

If the Iraqi people are so oppressed and want to to be liberated from Saddam. Why did they all just sit around waiting for Saddam to rebuild his republican guard and re-establish his power after the first war <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>I thought it was a good speech. He seemed to lay out some compelling reasons why Mr. Hussein shouldn't stick around any longer than he has to.

Giving the people who live in Iraq a break from this insane, evil asshole is reason enough, IMO. It'll probably be the happiest day of their lives when they realize they are freer and don't have to live in fear and dread 24/7.

I guess I'm naive, but I don't see what the problem is. Seems very clear-cut to me: Hussein was supposed to do this, this and this. He agreed. 12 years later, after numerous "second chances", waiting, talking, sending inspectors in, out, back, out again, back in, etc. he hasn't done that, that and that.

I think he's unstable and dangerous. I think he poses a genuine, honest-to-goodness threat.

Anyone who think we're "rushing" to anything needs to tweak their definition of the word "rush" because he's had more time and more "second chances" than anyone I can think of. I admire our restraint sometimes.



Hussein could simply put an end to all of this today if he wanted to. He obviously doesn't.

I tend to want to believe (and put my trust and faith in) the President, Powell, Rumsfeld, the U.N. inspectors, Iraqi defectors, intelligence reports, etc. more than I do Hollywood actors, naked Bay Area protestors and college students.

But that's just me.

Nothing wrong with acting, being naked or in college, of course. But I don't think they're in as good a position to truly know circumstances, inside info, strategies, etc. as the others are. It's simply not their job, nor are they privy to everything. Powell trumps Sarandon on this, fellas.

And I know that some are just philosophically against war and violence no matter what. And I respect that...who the hell - in their right mind - likes war? But it doesn't make them "right" in every case. And I simply think they're wrong in this one.

If it wasn't for a few nasty, brutal wars, they might not have the ability to even protest, raise their voices and otherwise experience all these cool freedoms many take for granted. There's an awesome connection there between the two that I think gets overlooked and ignored sometimes.

It cuts both ways: sometimes you have to break a few eggs and endure some nasty business to come out the other side and realize "okay, that was worth it...look at the outcome".

That doesn't (and shouldn't) make a "blind patriot" or whatever the term used in that other thread. I'd MUCH prefer (because I have friends over there as we speak, who - if things got bad and went horribly awry - I might not ever see or talk to again ) that Hussein woke up tomorrow morning, realized what an asshole he's been, realizes the jig is up, gives the inspectors everything they're asking for and either eats a bullet for dinner or simply grabs some cash and splits to an island somewhere and just lives the rest of his life fishing and snorkeling and reading quietly on his porch.



I'd love for there to not to be one bomb dropped, rifle fired or missile launched. But...

Just seems very cut-and-dried to me. If I saw things in a few more hundred shades of gray, maybe it would be different...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's rhetorical trickery to equate Susan Sarandon with Colin Powel as dove is to hawk. It's true on a basic level because one is indeed one and not the other. But I'm sure there are plenty of other *more qualified* anti-war protesters that could have been mentioned. Especially since the poster questioned the credibility of the person he mentioned in the first place! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> That much only makes sense. Let's be honest at least by NOT setting up issues just to knock them down.

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I agree with Fellowship.

You see, it doesn't matter what Bush proposes, because SPJ, tonton and the rest of the liberals will assail it BECAUSE HE IS George W. Bush. There is no other reason. One poster actually CRITICIZED Bush for calling for a clean environment, gasless autos, help for drug addicts and the destitute and tax relief for working families.

His case against Iraq was devastating. You may not like it, but it was. The speech was a smashing success. The support for attacking Iraq in polls taken (immediately after the speech) is now in the 70th and 80th percentiles.

I agree with 98% of the domestic agenda. Let me tell you, it didn't look good for the democrats to sit on their hands during his outline of the tax plan.

It doesn't matter what he says. He could announce they we have found a cure for aids and cancer an you'd still criticize him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is idiocy. Perhaps we oppose these actions because they are wrong? Anti-choice is wrong. Breaking Title 9 is wrong. Going to war to win an election is wrong. Lowering taxes for the rich is wrong. Reaganomics is very, very wrong. An international policy of sword wielding is wrong. An international policy of soapbox politics is wrong. And where Bush has made good proposals (volunteerism) the execution has been half-assed and lacking. A policy of hypocrisy just makes him look like an ass (preaching for emissions-free vehicles after all the administration has done in favor of the oil companies and against environmentalism?)

As I have said, there has not been a single Bush policy that has been successful. Not a single one. He talks the talk, and for some of you that is enough because you follow the Republican warmongering agenda because that is what you identify with, not because that is what you agree with.

WE NEED RESULTS. BUSH HAS FAILED 100% THUS FAR AND THE FORECAST IS A BLEAK ONE. At this point I think it's fair to call for a "regime change".

Let me clarify tonton's statement using capital letters:

BLEAK!

Remember all the Bush rhetoric about strengthening the borders? Anyone catch CBS News tonight? Another blatant failure. Please, some of you Bush apologists, explain how, in the age of the greatest threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis, illegal immigrants, including those of Muslim and Arab descent, are walking across the borders in our national parks right under the nose of our "great leader"?

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/29/eveningnews/main538448.shtml" target="_blank">Link</a>

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>

9/11 aside, the biggest threat to america is crazy-ass americans....

[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
<strong>9/11 aside, the biggest threat to america is crazy-ass americans....</strong><hr></blockquote>

The biggest threat to america is Lazy-ass americans.

Security should be everyones concern, not just the governments. Most Americans want to look the other way. Sadly the other thread is discussing a main reason... LAWYERS and lawsuits.

Holy cow.
There are a lot of very cynical, negative people on these boards.

Hey did you ever notice how much dubbya resembles Alfred E. Newman?

That's the guy from MAD magazine for those of you too young. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>

Interesting that you get nothing straight, Scott.

[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually Id like you to get it straight. But Im sure you cant.

I posted this quote

[quote] "He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that." - Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) <hr></blockquote>

Then you posted:

[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>

This is a simple factual statement.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then I posted:

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>Giant could you please give me a list of the OBL roads, schools, hospitals and (trying not to laugh here) day care facilities. WTF would an Islamic fundamentalist need a day care facility for?


Further could you please detail the amount of money the US, Hamas et. al. has spent in Egypt and the PT. Real dollar amounts would be great. TIA.


BTW you may want to shore up that hole youre digging there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which you havent done yet because you cant. Why? Because you are wrong. So turn you tail and run. Go stick your head in the sand and hide. Please prove to me that OBL and any others help out more than the US. Your anti-Americanism is only surpassed by your incredible ignorance.

If youd like reply in the <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=002564" target="_blank">original thread.</a>


Don't leave out the list of OBL daycare centers as well as a detailed accounting of how much money the US donates to that part of the world.

[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>

Show me evidence. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! I guess we'll have to wait until Feb 5th. Sorry, but you don't make your case with rhetoric. You make your case with evidence. His case is nothing until Feb 5th.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Listen to Hans Blix.

" I'll have a good belly laugh when giant sees US troops unearth Saddam's nuclear program in three months ".

Too bad I won't be able to see your face when they don't.

You see you don't have any idea any more than I do. The only thing about this is that Bush has said he's got some proof as justification for a " material breach " for some time now. The world's getting tired of waiting. I know he's said he'll disclose but that hasn't happened yet. So until then in my book it's just talk.

After they invade they can plant anything there to support their actions.

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>

This is idiocy. Perhaps we oppose these actions because they are wrong? Anti-choice is wrong. Breaking Title 9 is wrong. Going to war to win an election is wrong. Lowering taxes for the rich is wrong. Reaganomics is very, very wrong. An international policy of sword wielding is wrong. An international policy of soapbox politics is wrong. And where Bush has made good proposals (volunteerism) the execution has been half-assed and lacking. A policy of hypocrisy just makes him look like an ass (preaching for emissions-free vehicles after all the administration has done in favor of the oil companies and against environmentalism?)

As I have said, there has not been a single Bush policy that has been successful. Not a single one. He talks the talk, and for some of you that is enough because you follow the Republican warmongering agenda because that is what you identify with, not because that is what you agree with.

WE NEED RESULTS. BUSH HAS FAILED 100% THUS FAR AND THE FORECAST IS A BLEAK ONE. At this point I think it's fair to call for a "regime change".</strong><hr></blockquote>

With all due respect you are wrong.

You like that word "wrong"

You say Bush is anti-choice and such a stance is wrong?


I will always maintain that if you support killing via partial birth abortion that you are not only wrong but you are sick.

20 years from now Liberals will look back and scratch their heads and ask... Why did we wink at abortion and permit it. It "abortion" is so wrong it is not even funny tonton. How can you look me in the eye and say honestly that you find abortion ok?

How?

Fellowship

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>" I'll have a good belly laugh when giant sees US troops unearth Saddam's nuclear program in three months ".

Too bad I won't be able to see your face when they don't.

You see you don't have any idea any more than I do. The only thing about this is that Bush has said he's got some proof as justification for a " material breach " for some time now. The world's getting tired of waiting. I know he's said he'll disclose but that hasn't happened yet. So until then in my book it's just talk.

After they invade they can plant anything there to support their actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Like I said before (maybe in another thread I lost track) it's not the job of the inspectors to find the "smoking gun". It's the job of Iraq to bring everything out to see and have it destroyed. That's how it worked in other countries. Not in Iraq. Why? Iraq refuses to do that. Hans Blix said so himself. That's a clear violation even if the irrelevant UN refuses to say so.

I remember the days when there was "no proof" that OBL was a part of 9-11. Now that we have the video the anti-US idiots just move on to other things that they will be proven wrong about. Like Iraq.

Can you look me in the eye and say that the life of an unwanted child is ok? Or what this child might grow up to be is ok?

Or that back alley coat hanger surgery is ok?

Do you know when a piece of tissue becomes a human exactly? Or are you one of these idiotic it's always a potential people?

" Like I said before (maybe in another thread I lost track) it's not the job of the inspectors to find the "smoking gun". "

Hmmm? The rest of the world, the UN, and the inspection teams seem to think ( and say ) otherwise.

Good thing you're not in charge.

[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

So we should kill them rather than live the "unwanted" life. Oh BTW a coat hanger aint going to pry a baby lose that otherwise would have been aborted via PBA.


I'm pro-choice but PBA is flat out wrong. Medical exceptions seem resonable but to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at that late stage is just wrong.

And most of American and the USSC agree with me.

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>Can you look me in the eye and say that the life of an unwanted child is ok? Or what this child might grow up to be is ok?

Or that back alley coat hanger surgery is ok?

Do you know when a piece of tissue becomes a human exactly? Or are you one of these idiotic it's always a potential people?</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> Your first two questions are ignorant and do not address the issue. I would reply to your back alley question by saying that it is just as wrong as any other abortion. Funny that you find the back alley context to be disturbing but yet if it is "legal" and in an office complex it is somehow "ok"

I am not going to reply to your last question. I think you should really think about this issue and reflect on just what abortion is.

Again one day I would hope liberals come to question why they ever allowed this.

Fellowship

[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>" Like I said before (maybe in another thread I lost track) it's not the job of the inspectors to find the "smoking gun". "

Hmmm? The rest of the world, the UN, and the inspection teams seam to think ( and say ) otherwise.

Good thing you're not in charge.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah no. Hans Blix said that Iraq ... here wait I can go find the quote ...

oh wait I found one for giant.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq-Evidence.html" target="_blank">Inspector: Tubes Could Have Nuclear Use</a>

login: aimember
pass: aimember

... okay back to Blix ...


Here we go

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/international/middleeast/28IRAQ.html" target="_blank"> Inspector Says Iraq Falls Short</a>

[quote]"Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance not even today of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace," - Hans Blix<hr></blockquote>

That there is yourup UN talkin' fer "He aint doin' what he's 'pose to be doin'"

Here's anothe good part

[quote]Mr. Blix's sweeping and detailed critique of Iraq's failure to demonstrate with documents, interviews and other evidence that it had destroyed its prohibited weapons appeared to put new pressure on France, Germany and other nations that have resisted early military action to respond more forcefully to Baghdad's noncompliance.<hr></blockquote>

It's a good read.

[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>

" Your first two questions are ignorant and do not address the issue. "

Oh, but I think they are a big part of the issue! But nice dodging!

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>" Your first two questions are ignorant and do not address the issue. "

Oh, but I think they are a big part of the issue! But nice dodging! </strong><hr></blockquote>

I have a friend who told me he found out that he was not planned. To him that was a sad thing for him personally but he is doing just fine. Dave Thomas started the Wendy's Hamburger Chain and he was adopted. Do not paint a wide picture about a future of doom and gloom for those who may not be "wanted".

That is why your questions are ignorant.

To secure added integrity to my last post I want to say it is not only liberals who I address with my closing statement of my last post but all political leanings that any individual may hold towards who wink at and support abortion. It is not only a liberal thing and I wanted to clear that up.

Fellowship

They don't address the issue because what someone may or may not grow up to be is irrelevant to the issue of PBA being legal or not. We can't allow PBA on the bases that the children may grow up to be antisocial.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

It's a good read.

[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Since I have to register to read the times it's a safe thing to quote without me finding something in the article to refute you. But, from what you've quoted it still says nothing about them not having to find proof. Which seems to be in other articles I've read on CNN like :

"Mr. President, to conclude, we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon program. "

Sounds like they're looking for proof to me.

[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>They don't address the issue because what someone may or may not grow up to be is irrelevant to the issue of PBA being legal or not. We can't allow PBA on the bases that the children may grow up to be antisocial.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Scott, Scott, Scott,

This is just naive.

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>

Since I have to register to read the times it's a safe thing to quote without me finding something in the article to refute you.</strong><hr></blockquote>

God I posted a login for you

login: aimember
pass: aimember

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
But, from what you've quoted it still says nothing about them not having to find proof. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Ahhhh you're as thick as the French. 1441 requires Iraq to bring it all forward to the UN. Hold their hand and say "It's here and there and there" Blix reported they are not doing that. _______ breach?

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>Which seems to be in other articles I've read on CNN like :

"Mr. President, to conclude, we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon program. "

Sounds like they're looking for proof to me.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

They shouldn't have to look for the proof. Iraq is supposed to bring it to the UN. That are not. _______ breach?

Don't be like the French.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>They don't address the issue because what someone may or may not grow up to be is irrelevant to the issue of PBA being legal or not. We can't allow PBA on the bases that the children may grow up to be antisocial.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't believe you guys are still cracking on with COMPLETE AND UTTER IGNORANCE that partial birth abortion is only carried out when there is no (zero) chance of survival, and when the mother's health is at risk. Ignorant, stupid denial of the facts.

Show me a single case where PBA was legally performed on a healthy fetus. Don't spread FUD making it sound like they are killing babies.

Now, as far as first trimester abortion, it is no more wrong than contraception. And shouldn't you allow the individual woman whose life is actually affected by it to make her own decision? Can't you realize that people may disagree with your "moral" ideas? I think it's immoral to consider yourself so righteous that you can make a decision for others based on your own personal objection.

No where in the Bible was it said "thou shalt not abort". It was, however, said, "judge not, lest ye be judged". The church has taught you that abortion is wrong. Not Jesus or the Bible. I contend that Jesus was pro-choice! I can proclaim that the church is wrong, and that does nothing at all to deny the teachings of Jesus or the revelations of God. The word of the church DOES NOT EQUAL the word of God.

As for your personal views, you are perfectly free to act on them. Yet you can allow others to act on theirs. In fact, according to Jesus, you must allow others to choose for themselves.

You can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. Why is that so hard for people to understand? But by no means do either the states or the union have the right to take away the right of the people to choose for themselves whether to continue a first-trimester pregnancy.

[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]

[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>

" You can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. Why is that so hard for people to understand? But by no means do either the states or the union have the right to take away the right of the people to choose for themselves whether to continue a first-trimester pregnancy. "

They always seem to over look the word " choice " in that term.

[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

Shawn, whether I "set it up" or not, I still am going to look to those truly knowledgeable and qualified in these matters over celebrities and the like.

And Ms. Sarandon (and others sharing her opinions) certainly are not being kept from having their side heard. She has a powerful voice and stage to shout it from. A nice little perk from being a famous entertainment figure.

Still doesn't change anything really.

I can set people up to knock them down all I want if the mood strikes me. She doesn't represent or speak for me and my views.

But thanks anyway for more lessons in how to post. I'll be sure to file them in the appropriate place.



(you quoted my entire post - kinda long and covering several areas - just to mention the Sarandon thing? Just quote that one section if you want )

[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

They shouldn't have to look for the proof. Iraq is supposed to bring it to the UN. That are not. _______ breach?

Don't be like the French.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the login. Sorry I didn't notice. However it changes nothing. What's your obsession with the French? About the " shouldn't have to look for proof......like I said good thing you're not in charge.