Report, edit, etc...Posted by Forsaken on 2005-03-25 at 21:06:00
This will lead into maybe many different topics, but all are related to a certain extent.
Compliments of:
http://www.nbc5i.com/family/4283399/detail.html
I am not sure if this is correct information about George Bush but this is what my history teacher said to the class:
Note: My teacher is an Anti-Bush person, and anything Bush says or does is wrong to him, so this information may be false.
He said to the class that the Judges in California that allowed gay marriage are being taken out of power and are being released from the Jurisdiction in law. He then said that there were never any laws broken by the Judges, they just exercised a right that they have to allow Gay Marriage.
This then falls into Terry Schiavo Case, where the feeding tube has been put back in 3 times against the husband's rule, which the husband has full authority to choose Terry's fate. He chose for the tube to be removed. George Bush went against the law and placed the feeding tube back in 3 more times.
Compliments of:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/c...appealsrejected
Do you feel that the Judge's that were being taken out of power in California for Allowing Gay marriage is just? They are being removed for making other people happy. George Bush broke the law to allow a woman to live against the husband's rule. Should Bush be taken out of power?
I am not sure if this information is 100% accurate or 1 sided information. If it is please don't hesitate to correct me.
QUOTE
San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that keeping gays and lesbians from getting marriage licenses is unconstitutional.
He said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples. And he wrote the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.
Kramer likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools. If the ruling is upheld on appeal, it would pave the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex marriages.
Kramer's opinion came in a pair of lawsuits that were trying to overturn the state's statutory ban on gay marriage.
In 2004, 13 states passed constitutional bans on gay marriage. Some of the laws stop there; others ban any union or benefits that resemble marriage.
The issue came to the forefront in late 2003 when Massachusetts' top court ruled that the state could not bar homosexual marriages. As the state Legislature works toward an amendment, the state was required to begin issuing marriage licenses to any couple in the spring of 2004.
Soon after the Massachusetts ruling, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the city to issue the licenses. Thousands of resulting marriages were later invalidated.
The two incidents led President George W. Bush to call for a federal amendment barring gay marriage. The measure failed to pass the Senate, however.
He said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples. And he wrote the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.
Kramer likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools. If the ruling is upheld on appeal, it would pave the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex marriages.
Kramer's opinion came in a pair of lawsuits that were trying to overturn the state's statutory ban on gay marriage.
In 2004, 13 states passed constitutional bans on gay marriage. Some of the laws stop there; others ban any union or benefits that resemble marriage.
The issue came to the forefront in late 2003 when Massachusetts' top court ruled that the state could not bar homosexual marriages. As the state Legislature works toward an amendment, the state was required to begin issuing marriage licenses to any couple in the spring of 2004.
Soon after the Massachusetts ruling, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the city to issue the licenses. Thousands of resulting marriages were later invalidated.
The two incidents led President George W. Bush to call for a federal amendment barring gay marriage. The measure failed to pass the Senate, however.
Compliments of:
http://www.nbc5i.com/family/4283399/detail.html
I am not sure if this is correct information about George Bush but this is what my history teacher said to the class:
Note: My teacher is an Anti-Bush person, and anything Bush says or does is wrong to him, so this information may be false.
He said to the class that the Judges in California that allowed gay marriage are being taken out of power and are being released from the Jurisdiction in law. He then said that there were never any laws broken by the Judges, they just exercised a right that they have to allow Gay Marriage.
This then falls into Terry Schiavo Case, where the feeding tube has been put back in 3 times against the husband's rule, which the husband has full authority to choose Terry's fate. He chose for the tube to be removed. George Bush went against the law and placed the feeding tube back in 3 more times.
QUOTE
With almost all of their court options exhausted, the parents of Terri Schiavo turned their hopes to Gov. Jeb Bush on Thursday, begging him to be their "hero" and send state law-enforcement agents to rescue the dying woman.
But a Florida judge has ruled that Bush has no legal authority to remove Schiavo from the hospice. And the governor said he has no special powers to act in the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Thursday turned down Bob and Mary Schindler's petition for a hearing without comment as it had done four times before, dashing their hopes that the federal courts would intervene and save their brain-damaged daughter's life.
While the parents were described as "shellshocked" by the high court's decision, the attorney for Terri Schiavo's husband said it was time to allow her to die with dignity.
"She is peaceful. She is resting comfortably," said attorney George Felos, adding that Michael Schiavo has spent much of his time at his wife's bedside since Friday. "She is in her death process."
As of Thursday afternoon, Schiavo, 41, had been without food or water for six full days and was showing signs of dehydration--flaky skin, dry tongue and lips, sunken eyes, according to attorneys and friends of the Schindlers. Doctors have said she would probably die within a week or two of her feeding tube being pulled.
Despite a series of rulings against them, the Schindlers and right-to-life supporters who held vigils at Schiavo's hospice, the governor's office and outside courts refused to give up.
"Every minute that goes by is a minute that Terri is being starved and dehydrated to death," said her brother, Bobby Schindler, who said his sister now looks like someone in a concentration camp.
Plea suggests misdiagnosis
Though no one held high hopes for success, attorneys for the parents returned to federal court in Tampa on Thursday night for a hearing on an amended complaint that they said provided new information from a neurologist who said that Schiavo might have been misdiagnosed and is not in a persistent vegetative state as many doctors have said.
The state acknowledged that Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist with the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, had not examined Schiavo and had made his diagnosis after spending 90 minutes at her bedside and by viewing videotapes. The motion also cited allegations that Schiavo has been abused and neglected while incapacitated.
The Schindlers attended the hearing before U.S. District Judge James Whittemore, who ruled against them on Tuesday after political moves in Washington produced a new law allowing the parents to pursue their case in the federal courts. The judge completed the hearing but had not issued a ruling as of late Thursday.
The same information was used in a motion by the Florida Department of Children & Families to Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer as the agency sought to gain legal custody of Terri Schiavo. Greer, who granted Michael Schiavo's request to remove the feeding tube March 18, denied the state's motion, saying the information was not new. He said the action "appears to be brought for the purpose of circumventing the court's final judgment." Later, the state Supreme Court upheld Greer's ruling.
Though Bush had said Florida law gives state social services the authority to take a vulnerable adult into immediate custody in cases of abuse or neglect, Greer ruled the state had no legal right to remove her from the hospice and reinsert the feeding tube.
"The executive and the judicial branches of government are separate but equal. That is indeed true," Greer said. "But the executive is certainly not superior."
Though Bush made it clear Thursday that he did not intend to break the law, the situation created a dilemma. Some religious conservatives said he could pay a political price if he does not intervene. Bush cannot run for a third term as governor, but he could run for the U.S. Senate or another national office.
"I have consistently said I can't go beyond what my powers are, and I'm not going to do it," said the governor, the brother of President Bush (news - web sites).
"It is frustrating for people to think that I have power that I don't, and not be able to act," the governor told The Associated Press. "I don't have embedded special powers. I wish I did in this particular case."
Governor urged to act
Still, right-to-life groups stepped up their efforts to get him to ignore the court and take custody of Schiavo.
"Heroes are the ones who in the defining moment come through, and everyone is hoping he will come through," said Randall Terry, president of the Society for Truth and Justice, a right-to-life group. "The family's hopes rest squarely on Gov. Bush."
Christian conservative groups planned a nationwide protest on Good Friday, two days before Easter, calling for daylong vigils at federal courthouses in their cities until Gov. Bush decides to intervene.
"If Judge Greer puts him in jail, Gov. Bush will be a martyr. He can win any job he wants," said Brent Narog, 50, a protester from Pinellas Park. "I hope he has the guts to get in there and take charge. He can back it up with the National Guard if he has to."
On Wednesday, after the state Senate failed to pass a bill that would force doctors to reinsert Schiavo's feeding tube, the state did attempt to move the woman from the hospice. The effort was thwarted when Michael Schiavo's attorney got wind of it and rushed into Greer's court to get a restraining order.
Felos said he received a call Wednesday afternoon from the attorney for a local hospital who told him the state planned to remove Schiavo from the hospice at 4 p.m. He said officials wanted to ensure that the hospital, where the feeding tube would be reinserted, was prepared to take her. Police at the hospice also said they had been told to prepare for Schiavo's removal.
After the restraining order was issued, Felos arranged for police in Pinellas County to intercede if agents from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement showed up at the hospice. The state agents did not show up, and Felos acknowledged it would have created a difficult situation between opposing law-enforcement agents--those trying to remove her and those charged with keeping her there.
"It is a shame that we have to run to court to protect Terri Schiavo from the state of Florida," he said. "Absent kidnapping, Terri Schiavo will remain at the hospice."
If any information is wrong please forgive me. I am not sure if all of it is 100% accurate or if it is just 1 sided information.
But a Florida judge has ruled that Bush has no legal authority to remove Schiavo from the hospice. And the governor said he has no special powers to act in the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Thursday turned down Bob and Mary Schindler's petition for a hearing without comment as it had done four times before, dashing their hopes that the federal courts would intervene and save their brain-damaged daughter's life.
While the parents were described as "shellshocked" by the high court's decision, the attorney for Terri Schiavo's husband said it was time to allow her to die with dignity.
"She is peaceful. She is resting comfortably," said attorney George Felos, adding that Michael Schiavo has spent much of his time at his wife's bedside since Friday. "She is in her death process."
As of Thursday afternoon, Schiavo, 41, had been without food or water for six full days and was showing signs of dehydration--flaky skin, dry tongue and lips, sunken eyes, according to attorneys and friends of the Schindlers. Doctors have said she would probably die within a week or two of her feeding tube being pulled.
Despite a series of rulings against them, the Schindlers and right-to-life supporters who held vigils at Schiavo's hospice, the governor's office and outside courts refused to give up.
"Every minute that goes by is a minute that Terri is being starved and dehydrated to death," said her brother, Bobby Schindler, who said his sister now looks like someone in a concentration camp.
Plea suggests misdiagnosis
Though no one held high hopes for success, attorneys for the parents returned to federal court in Tampa on Thursday night for a hearing on an amended complaint that they said provided new information from a neurologist who said that Schiavo might have been misdiagnosed and is not in a persistent vegetative state as many doctors have said.
The state acknowledged that Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist with the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, had not examined Schiavo and had made his diagnosis after spending 90 minutes at her bedside and by viewing videotapes. The motion also cited allegations that Schiavo has been abused and neglected while incapacitated.
The Schindlers attended the hearing before U.S. District Judge James Whittemore, who ruled against them on Tuesday after political moves in Washington produced a new law allowing the parents to pursue their case in the federal courts. The judge completed the hearing but had not issued a ruling as of late Thursday.
The same information was used in a motion by the Florida Department of Children & Families to Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer as the agency sought to gain legal custody of Terri Schiavo. Greer, who granted Michael Schiavo's request to remove the feeding tube March 18, denied the state's motion, saying the information was not new. He said the action "appears to be brought for the purpose of circumventing the court's final judgment." Later, the state Supreme Court upheld Greer's ruling.
Though Bush had said Florida law gives state social services the authority to take a vulnerable adult into immediate custody in cases of abuse or neglect, Greer ruled the state had no legal right to remove her from the hospice and reinsert the feeding tube.
"The executive and the judicial branches of government are separate but equal. That is indeed true," Greer said. "But the executive is certainly not superior."
Though Bush made it clear Thursday that he did not intend to break the law, the situation created a dilemma. Some religious conservatives said he could pay a political price if he does not intervene. Bush cannot run for a third term as governor, but he could run for the U.S. Senate or another national office.
"I have consistently said I can't go beyond what my powers are, and I'm not going to do it," said the governor, the brother of President Bush (news - web sites).
"It is frustrating for people to think that I have power that I don't, and not be able to act," the governor told The Associated Press. "I don't have embedded special powers. I wish I did in this particular case."
Governor urged to act
Still, right-to-life groups stepped up their efforts to get him to ignore the court and take custody of Schiavo.
"Heroes are the ones who in the defining moment come through, and everyone is hoping he will come through," said Randall Terry, president of the Society for Truth and Justice, a right-to-life group. "The family's hopes rest squarely on Gov. Bush."
Christian conservative groups planned a nationwide protest on Good Friday, two days before Easter, calling for daylong vigils at federal courthouses in their cities until Gov. Bush decides to intervene.
"If Judge Greer puts him in jail, Gov. Bush will be a martyr. He can win any job he wants," said Brent Narog, 50, a protester from Pinellas Park. "I hope he has the guts to get in there and take charge. He can back it up with the National Guard if he has to."
On Wednesday, after the state Senate failed to pass a bill that would force doctors to reinsert Schiavo's feeding tube, the state did attempt to move the woman from the hospice. The effort was thwarted when Michael Schiavo's attorney got wind of it and rushed into Greer's court to get a restraining order.
Felos said he received a call Wednesday afternoon from the attorney for a local hospital who told him the state planned to remove Schiavo from the hospice at 4 p.m. He said officials wanted to ensure that the hospital, where the feeding tube would be reinserted, was prepared to take her. Police at the hospice also said they had been told to prepare for Schiavo's removal.
After the restraining order was issued, Felos arranged for police in Pinellas County to intercede if agents from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement showed up at the hospice. The state agents did not show up, and Felos acknowledged it would have created a difficult situation between opposing law-enforcement agents--those trying to remove her and those charged with keeping her there.
"It is a shame that we have to run to court to protect Terri Schiavo from the state of Florida," he said. "Absent kidnapping, Terri Schiavo will remain at the hospice."
If any information is wrong please forgive me. I am not sure if all of it is 100% accurate or if it is just 1 sided information.
Compliments of:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/c...appealsrejected
Do you feel that the Judge's that were being taken out of power in California for Allowing Gay marriage is just? They are being removed for making other people happy. George Bush broke the law to allow a woman to live against the husband's rule. Should Bush be taken out of power?
I am not sure if this information is 100% accurate or 1 sided information. If it is please don't hesitate to correct me.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-03-25 at 21:16:05
Sounds a little bit one sided. I don't care about the gay marriage thing/issue.....I would just think the only reason why they want to get married is for the benfits that married couples get. On th feeding tube issue there is no reason to be mad at Bush for trying to keep a HUMAN BEING alive. But then again she is just an empty shell, only a body and noting in that head. I am pro Bush but Im not a hater and I like to listen to both sides of arguements.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by warhammer40000 on 2005-03-25 at 21:31:18
He does alot of crap i dont like. But hes not as bad as some prezez... 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Forsaken on 2005-03-25 at 21:34:31
QUOTE
...you type too much disgust.gif ...
lol, jking ^_^
:spam!: Please keep spam down, this is a SERIOUS DISCUSSION thread. Thus is equivalent to a lot of typing.lol, jking ^_^
QUOTE
Sounds a little bit one sided. I don't care about the gay marriage thing/issue.....I would just think the only reason why they want to get married is for the benfits that married couples get. On th feeding tube issue there is no reason to be mad at Bush for trying to keep a HUMAN BEING alive. But then again she is just an empty shell, only a body and noting in that head. I am pro Bush but Im not a hater and I like to listen to both sides of arguements.
Well, I thought it was pretty one-sided. But, I didn't like Kerry so I am glad that Bush won the election. But, he has made quite a few bad choices. There is that law that specificly states what is going on right now for waht is happening to Terry. I will try and find it and post it. But, you are a devout Christian and I have read a few topics so I know (kind of) how you feel about God's plan. I read in a different article that was on a Chritianity website stating: This is God's plan. To die a slow death even if painful you are being personally selected by God to share Jesus's pain.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-03-25 at 22:16:29
Hmmm... well here's what i think about bush:
Yes bush is not the greatest president and many of his decisions and actions seem wrong to many's PoVs. But that doesn't make Bush an evil man as most of you guys seem to conclude.
Bush is a nice guy. He's a very well liked person when it comes to personality. At one conference or something, he was just strolling along when a young girl and her father came up to him. The father told bush that "this girl had lost her mother in the 9/11 attack." Seeing how the girl was on the verge of bursting into tears, bush went up to the girl, gave her a warm embrace, and said "i can see that you have a father that loves you very much." He's very good at conciliating people and that's a very crucial quality leaders of countries should have.
As far as Iraq, there are many bad things about it, but then, Bush has his reasons. We really didn't know if Iraq had any WMDs. We didn't want to take the chance of getting nuked, especially since our latest experience with 9/11. Only reason we found out that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction is because we had to go there and see for ourselves. If we'd never invaded Iraq, we would never have known if they had any WMDs. Living under the assumption that Iraq could have WMDs, you'd feel uncomfortable.
Let's put it this way. Let's say you are on a vacation in Hawaii and you want to visit the other islands. To do so, you would have to fly airplanes. However, before you are about to board one of those airplanes, a flight crew member tells you that there's a 50% chance that the airplane's engine will fail and thus causing the aircraft to crash. Would you still want to ride that airplane? Most would not because they do not want to take the risk. This is just like our situation with Iraq; we dont want to take the risk of having Iraq have any WMDs.
Saddam Hussein truly was a crazy guy. Even if we knew he had no WMDs, something still must be done. He needed to be removed of his power no matter what. He beats up his own people, tortures them, and treats them with a cold heart. That's not what leaders should be like. After 9/11, our country vowed to eliminate all terrorism around the world. Iraq happens to be one of the sources of terrorism.
Yes, maybe the bad outweighs the good in some areas. But Bush has his logical reasonings for his decisions and actions.
Yes bush is not the greatest president and many of his decisions and actions seem wrong to many's PoVs. But that doesn't make Bush an evil man as most of you guys seem to conclude.
Bush is a nice guy. He's a very well liked person when it comes to personality. At one conference or something, he was just strolling along when a young girl and her father came up to him. The father told bush that "this girl had lost her mother in the 9/11 attack." Seeing how the girl was on the verge of bursting into tears, bush went up to the girl, gave her a warm embrace, and said "i can see that you have a father that loves you very much." He's very good at conciliating people and that's a very crucial quality leaders of countries should have.
As far as Iraq, there are many bad things about it, but then, Bush has his reasons. We really didn't know if Iraq had any WMDs. We didn't want to take the chance of getting nuked, especially since our latest experience with 9/11. Only reason we found out that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction is because we had to go there and see for ourselves. If we'd never invaded Iraq, we would never have known if they had any WMDs. Living under the assumption that Iraq could have WMDs, you'd feel uncomfortable.
Let's put it this way. Let's say you are on a vacation in Hawaii and you want to visit the other islands. To do so, you would have to fly airplanes. However, before you are about to board one of those airplanes, a flight crew member tells you that there's a 50% chance that the airplane's engine will fail and thus causing the aircraft to crash. Would you still want to ride that airplane? Most would not because they do not want to take the risk. This is just like our situation with Iraq; we dont want to take the risk of having Iraq have any WMDs.
Saddam Hussein truly was a crazy guy. Even if we knew he had no WMDs, something still must be done. He needed to be removed of his power no matter what. He beats up his own people, tortures them, and treats them with a cold heart. That's not what leaders should be like. After 9/11, our country vowed to eliminate all terrorism around the world. Iraq happens to be one of the sources of terrorism.
Yes, maybe the bad outweighs the good in some areas. But Bush has his logical reasonings for his decisions and actions.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Forsaken on 2005-03-25 at 22:32:17
I never said that I was against Bush. I was just putting in comparison what he believed about Gay Marriage and how he (I am not sure if it is 100% him) is against Gay Marriage so he didn't want to allow the judges to go through with that. So then he borke a law for the better of someone else. Like I said I was just comparing his actions to someone else's which when it comes down to it. The people involved with the Terry case are trying to make it better for her as the people for Gay Marriage are for making Homosexual's to have the same rights as say a married man and woman.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-03-26 at 00:29:19
QUOTE
As far as Iraq, there are many bad things about it, but then, Bush has his reasons. We really didn't know if Iraq had any WMDs. We didn't want to take the chance of getting nuked, especially since our latest experience with 9/11. Only reason we found out that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction is because we had to go there and see for ourselves. If we'd never invaded Iraq, we would never have known if they had any WMDs. Living under the assumption that Iraq could have WMDs, you'd feel uncomfortable.
If Saddam had nukes you seriously think he'd use them against us??? Get real. Saddam is power-hungry but he isn't insane. The worst he would have done was nuked Israel. The US was never in danger from WMDs, nor was the conclusive evidence he had them. We shouldn't go into countries and kill tens of thousands of innocecnt people just because we think that country's leader is evil. If we have to crusade around the world fixing other countries, why not try making sure America is perfect first??
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Axellraff on 2005-03-26 at 00:47:35
To depend which camp are-you.... 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-03-26 at 13:14:34
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 25 2005, 09:29 PM)
If Saddam had nukes you seriously think he'd use them against us??? Get real. Saddam is power-hungry but he isn't insane. The worst he would have done was nuked Israel. The US was never in danger from WMDs, nor was the conclusive evidence he had them. We shouldn't go into countries and kill tens of thousands of innocecnt people just because we think that country's leader is evil. If we have to crusade around the world fixing other countries, why not try making sure America is perfect first??
[right][snapback]172784[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]172784[/snapback][/right]
Your right that the chance for America getting attacked by some kind of WMD was very little. But the chance that Saddam would use it on his own people and other countries was/is very high. Middle Eastern people are HUMAN BEINGS, what makes us so much better then them? Why can't they have the quality of life that western people have (and some asian countries too)? Why can't they live with out the fear of their village being gassed? In my opinion no one is free if people are being oppressed, we went in to Iraq to get some oil and better the life of those Iraqis, we have only been in there for roughly a year and a half, it takes time for a country to stabilize. And those terrorists are not innocent people, we killed them becuase they were killing us and trying to kill iraq civilians. Yes there is always calateral damage in any war, its almost unpreventable, oh ya -- the majority of those 10 thousand people are terrorists and evil scum.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-03-26 at 13:16:50
QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Mar 26 2005, 10:14 AM)
Your right that the chance for America getting attacked by some kind of WMD was very little. But the chance that Saddam would use it on his own people and other countries was/is very high. Middle Eastern people are HUMAN BEINGS, what makes us so much better then them? Why can't they have the quality of life that western people have (and some asian countries too)? Why can't they live with out the fear of their village being gassed? In my opinion no one is free if people are being oppressed, we went in to Iraq to get some oil and better the life of those Iraqis, we have only been in there for roughly a year and a half, it takes time for a country to stabilize. And those terrorists are not innocent people, we killed them becuase they were killing us and trying to kill iraq civilians. Yes there is always calateral damage in any war, its almost unpreventable, oh ya -- the majority of those 10 thousand people are terrorists and evil scum.
[right][snapback]173056[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]173056[/snapback][/right]
I say it again. Before we crusade around the world fixing other countries, try making America perfect first. If America was in perfect shape, then perhaps we could go fix other countries.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-03-26 at 15:36:46
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 25 2005, 11:29 PM)
If Saddam had nukes you seriously think he'd use them against us??? Get real. Saddam is power-hungry but he isn't insane. The worst he would have done was nuked Israel. The US was never in danger from WMDs, nor was the conclusive evidence he had them. We shouldn't go into countries and kill tens of thousands of innocecnt people just because we think that country's leader is evil. If we have to crusade around the world fixing other countries, why not try making sure America is perfect first??
[right][snapback]172784[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]172784[/snapback][/right]
It doesn't matter who he'd use nukes against. It's the fact that he's going to be using them that's bad. His country was also another source of Terrorism. And since we vowed to fight off against all terrorism, that's also another reason for us to do something about Iraq.
QUOTE
I say it again. Before we crusade around the world fixing other countries, try making America perfect first. If America was in perfect shape, then perhaps we could go fix other countries.
We shouldn't just be caring for ourselves like that. People would think we're selfish and not caring for others. We should be doing both making ourselves better AND helping others. Besides it's not just about fixing Iraq; it's about fighting off terrorism.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Forsaken on 2005-03-26 at 16:42:12
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 25 2005, 09:29 PM)
If Saddam had nukes you seriously think he'd use them against us??? Get real. Saddam is power-hungry but he isn't insane. The worst he would have done was nuked Israel. The US was never in danger from WMDs, nor was the conclusive evidence he had them. We shouldn't go into countries and kill tens of thousands of innocecnt people just because we think that country's leader is evil. If we have to crusade around the world fixing other countries, why not try making sure America is perfect first??
[right][snapback]172784[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]172784[/snapback][/right]
Well, I know the way you feel about Bush DT. But, I am not for or against him. But, they way he went after thw WsMD was a crock of shit. I knew from day 1 that there was not one WMD. He went to Iraq primarily for oil, which in our country at the rate we burn fossil fuels would only last 6 months. So, I think taking out Suddam was good enough.
QUOTE(Axellraff @ Mar 25 2005, 09:47 PM)
To depend which camp are-you....
[right][snapback]172791[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]172791[/snapback][/right]
What are you trying to say? I know that you don't speak very good english. But, I commend you for trying.
QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Mar 26 2005, 10:14 AM)
Your right that the chance for America getting attacked by some kind of WMD was very little. But the chance that Saddam would use it on his own people and other countries was/is very high. Middle Eastern people are HUMAN BEINGS, what makes us so much better then them? Why can't they have the quality of life that western people have (and some asian countries too)? Why can't they live with out the fear of their village being gassed? In my opinion no one is free if people are being oppressed, we went in to Iraq to get some oil and better the life of those Iraqis, we have only been in there for roughly a year and a half, it takes time for a country to stabilize. And those terrorists are not innocent people, we killed them becuase they were killing us and trying to kill iraq civilians. Yes there is always calateral damage in any war, its almost unpreventable, oh ya -- the majority of those 10 thousand people are terrorists and evil scum.
[right][snapback]173056[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]173056[/snapback][/right]
I agree with you on Suddam being taken out of power. He is a twisted, sick, but very smart person. He did a lot of cruel things to his own people and now that he is gone I think the people should attempt fix there problems and have the U.S. only step in when there is going to be a major problem.
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Mar 26 2005, 10:16 AM)
I say it again. Before we crusade around the world fixing other countries, try making America perfect first. If America was in perfect shape, then perhaps we could go fix other countries.
[right][snapback]173060[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]173060[/snapback][/right]
Amen.
QUOTE(MillenniumArmy @ Mar 26 2005, 12:36 PM)
It doesn't matter who he'd use nukes against. It's the fact that he's going to be using them that's bad. His country was also another source of Terrorism. And since we vowed to fight off against all terrorism, that's also another reason for us to do something about Iraq.
We shouldn't just be caring for ourselves like that. People would think we're selfish and not caring for others. We should be doing both making ourselves better AND helping others. Besides it's not just about fixing Iraq; it's about fighting off terrorism.
[right][snapback]173167[/snapback][/right]
We shouldn't just be caring for ourselves like that. People would think we're selfish and not caring for others. We should be doing both making ourselves better AND helping others. Besides it's not just about fixing Iraq; it's about fighting off terrorism.
[right][snapback]173167[/snapback][/right]
Well, if Nuclear WarFare is used at all is extremely bad for the environment and would have long-term effects in the Middle Eastern areas. In the end if Suddam Nuke'd anywhere it would hurt the entire world from one thing to another regardless to how far we are from the danger zone.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-03-26 at 19:23:10
QUOTE
We shouldn't just be caring for ourselves like that. People would think we're selfish and not caring for others. We should be doing both making ourselves better AND helping others. Besides it's not just about fixing Iraq; it's about fighting off terrorism.
Perhaps if we could do both. Last time I checked we spent mucho resources, lives, and money to go to Iraq while we left America to sit and attempt to deal with its own problems. We've already spent much resources, over $150 billion, over 1,000 American lives and over 130,000 innocent lives in Iraq. For... what, WMDs that probabally never even existed? We never should have been in iraq without UN sanction. It isn't our job to make the world according to how we see it should be. If the world as a whole makes a decision, we should lend our money and such to support it, but let the world decide how the world should be, don't mold it in the image of America.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-03-26 at 19:50:44
Where did you get 130,000 iraqs have died? And since when were they innocent? If 130,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS were killed then it would be on the news and in the news papers across the world. I would say Iraqi terrorist deaths would be in the thousands (like above 5,000), Iraqi civilian deaths are not above 5,000.....its just not possible....I hear about more soldiers dieing then iraqi civilians and soldier deaths are ony 1,200. 130,000 Iraqis have not died in one and half years. Please provide a legitamet source to prove me wrong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-03-26 at 20:19:47
QUOTE
The results were calculated twice, both with and without information from the city of Falluja. The researchers felt the excessive violence from combat in Falluja could skew the overall mortality rates. Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Eighty-four percent of the violent deaths were reported
http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Pres...rnham_Iraq.html
QUOTE
Iraqi civilian deaths put at 100,000
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the US-led invasion last year, according to public health experts who estimate there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.
The US-based researchers found that the risk of death from...
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the US-led invasion last year, according to public health experts who estimate there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.
The US-based researchers found that the risk of death from...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1230305.htm -as of 10/29/04, surely more have died.
QUOTE
ky to emerge from the survey unharmed.
The paper that they published carried some caveats. For instance, the researchers admitted that many of the dead might have been combatants. They also acknowledged that the true number of deaths could fall anywhere within a range of 8,000 to 194,000, a function of the researchers' having extrapolated their survey to a country of 25 million.
But the statistics do point to a number in the middle of that range. And the raw numbers upon which the researchers' extrapolation was based are undeniable: Since the invasion, the No. 1 cause of dea
The paper that they published carried some caveats. For instance, the researchers admitted that many of the dead might have been combatants. They also acknowledged that the true number of deaths could fall anywhere within a range of 8,000 to 194,000, a function of the researchers' having extrapolated their survey to a country of 25 million.
But the statistics do point to a number in the middle of that range. And the raw numbers upon which the researchers' extrapolation was based are undeniable: Since the invasion, the No. 1 cause of dea
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905K.shtml
Need more?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Forsaken on 2005-03-26 at 23:07:26
Battle, where did you find those links? I was on Yahoo News Search along with Google News Search and I never found a decent article?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-03-27 at 01:18:38
www.google.com search for "iraqi civilian deaths"
All on the first page of results
All on the first page of results
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-03-27 at 23:28:22
ok, I admit you did prove me wrong, good job
But on the last source it said that some Iragis could have been lieing. Also it said the deaths were cause by Violence, it did not state weather it was American Forces or Terrorists. I doubt it that America has killed more Iraq civilians then Terrorists. I hear everyday of Iraqi civilians being bombed by terrorists, becuase the terrorists know that America ain;t going anywhere so they are trying to scare the civilians, at you know what the civilians are doing? PROTESTING!!!!!! WOOT
WOOT Protedting against the terrorists and telling them to get out! Which is tight.
But on the last source it said that some Iragis could have been lieing. Also it said the deaths were cause by Violence, it did not state weather it was American Forces or Terrorists. I doubt it that America has killed more Iraq civilians then Terrorists. I hear everyday of Iraqi civilians being bombed by terrorists, becuase the terrorists know that America ain;t going anywhere so they are trying to scare the civilians, at you know what the civilians are doing? PROTESTING!!!!!! WOOT
WOOT Protedting against the terrorists and telling them to get out! Which is tight.Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-03-28 at 02:38:13
many, many fewer Iraqi civillians would be harmed by terrorists of the US wasn't there. These are totally innocent people, hurt by terrost attacks on US soldiers. Still more or less our fault.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-03-28 at 23:49:29
Its a dirty job, to create a whole new, visionary society in a land of tyranny. Yes, many men and woman and children will perish, but some country has got to step up to the plate and do it, its a dirty job, and there will be many hard times, but the New Iraq will prevail, no matter the cost!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Forsaken on 2005-04-01 at 10:54:57
QUOTE
New Iraq will prevail, no matter the cost!
+(Sorry I haven't posted, I have been in Utah for a race).
And how would it benefit us?
What good would it do for neighboring countries?
Simce the US became a world power in such a small amount of time there are many people that completely hate us because they can't even do half of the things that we can. (Not really sure where this is going).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-04-02 at 14:33:07
Maybe Bush shoudl watch those videos about bullying and how it's not nice to force our views on other people who don't want them. Who ever said Iraqis wanted democracy? Common Iraqi sentiment is still they want US troops OUT of their country.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-04-02 at 14:59:13
Who ever said Iraqi's never wanted democracy? My family friend, Brad Jenison (Army Ranger) was in Iraq, in Bagdad, and he said the Iraqi's were super awsome/nice and they loved America. He has been all over Iraq too.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-04-05 at 18:33:24
Sure the ones willing to approach Americans like us. What about the people joining insurgent groups by the masses? Those that hide in their houses when Americans are nearby?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-04-05 at 18:43:44
Joining insurgent groups by the masses? Haven't you read whats going on over there? Iraqis are protesting AGIANST the insurgents and terrorism! The ones the go into their homes to hide? The ones I have read about and my friend (brad Jenisen, army ranger) have met come to him and greet him, or ignore him completely. They don't go and hide! And the insurgents are from OTHER COUNTRIES, the majority at least. VERY few are Iraqis.