Justice

Well, the belief that life begins at conception isn't one that is just restricted to the Bible. I'm not a massive Christian, but Abortion has always felt wrong for the simple fact that you are ending a life before it even has a chance to start. I don't need the Bible to tell me that's wrong when I naturally feel that way.

Well, one is tried by a jury of his or her peers, has gone through many levels of appeals and has still been declared guilty, while the other is a life in the making which has done nothing harmful to anyone or anything. If anything, you should be asking yourself "How can you be for abortions, which kills something that's completely innocent, but be against the Death Penalty, where you are killing convicted criminals who have been judged by a jury of their peers".

Yeah, because Iraq having oil has really been beneficial to us. Have you bought a tank of gas lately? Ill bet I can think of a few high-ranking gentleman that made more a few coins off it though Of course, you'd have no proof besides heresay and conjecture, but what the hell, those count, don't they?

So, because there's oil in the country, they don't matter? If they had fucking CORN in their country you'd say "Can we go to a country where there's no corn!?" I don't remember Afganistan being all too big on oil either, dude. Okay, you can give me a dictator out there who could cause more damage to his own people and countries around him than Saddam (Kim Il Jong II is out since he's already being dealt with anyways), please, speak up. Christ, I thought I qualified as the war-like one here, but invade Iraq and suddenly all the libs are "Well now look what you did! You'd better invade EVERYONE now!" Apparently they lack the knowledge that military campaigns take time.

You, my friend, are a fucktard. Seriously. People constantly tout how many men have died in Iraq as though we are supposed to say "Jesus, people are dying! We have to get out of there!" Understand, moron, that more people would have died had Saddam been left in power compared to when we went in. 500 Deaths? I mourn them for their sacrifice, but I understand why that sacrifice was made: for the direct welfare of 25,000,000 people and countless other millions indirectly who could have been hurt by Saddam had he tried another invasion (His army was still the best in the Middle East outside of Israel). You idiots use them as a simple statistic to try and further your already weak argument of non-intervention. More died in a single hour on Omaha Beach, dying for the freedom of others who couldn't defend themselves. Would you throw away their achievement and say that they died in vain for a war we never needed to get involved in (Japan and Germany never intended to invade the US). How 'bout telling the 1,000,000 families abroad (Outside of Iraq) that lost their loved ones that the lives of 500 servicemen was simply a price too high to take out someone who took the lives of their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, and uncles. I loathe people like you.

I'm very surprised not to have seen any hentai up to this moment. Thank God.

Agreed. If Edwards doesn't get the nomination now and doesn't taint himself with a possible failing run at the VP job, he is setting himself up for a fantastic run in 2008. Even though he's a trial lawyer he has oodles of charisma and appeal, plus he'll have 4 more years to build himself up as a someone after getting noticed now.

Because, yes, we haven't sent them massive amounts of aid and deposed the governments that pushed them into poverty. Oh wait... Lemme guess, you'd rather have peace in our time, right?

Interesting stuff indeed, but since you have Woody Paige as your avatar your opinion is instantly deemed unworthy. Jay Mariotti > j00

How did HE drive the economy into the ground? The lastest economic reports say that the recession started during the Clinton Adminstration. It was his tax cuts that have jump-started our economy. Jobs are coming back slow, but any economist will tell you that jobs are ALWAYS the last thing to come back in a recovering economy. You should really shut up. You do a disservice to all the intelligent British people here every time you type up one of your inane and unsubstantiated responses.

Considering that the poorest 10% in the US are still better off than 2/3rds of the entire world population, I think there are other people who may need it a little more. Plus, as mentioned before we have many different charity organizations that can help out the poor in the US. On topic: I'm not in favor of the move, but Bush is trying to be the bigger of the two here. But whatever.

Well, for the bad information he was given (That Iraq had WMDs and were a massive threat to the US), he made the right decision. You can't fault him for making the decision he should of in that situation. When that person or persons is actually responsible for what happened, then yes. For the US the failure would be on the CIA for not figuring this out. Yeah, Iraq is a tough place to get into and get into the power structure, but for information this off, they are the ones at fault here. To exhume the CIA of any blame is ridiculous; they were the weak link in the chain and need to take responsibility themselves. It looks as though we need a serious revamping of our intelligence structure. No, not really. Both times the failure is on CIA for not doing their jobs properly, whether it was misreading information and drawing bad conclusions or simply not getting the information out. Bush didn't fail at his job, the CIA failed at theirs, and therefore they should take the brunt of the blame.

#1: when Bush was coming into office, I heard people mention that he'd be able to surround himself with good people, and it's make up for any lack of skill he might have at that moment. So, I guess that never quite worked out for him. As for making a decision based on wrong information. He did it. And he should take responsibility for it. Not any of this 'lousy information' stuff. Bush was elected to restore intregity and character in the White House, remember? #1: Again, this isn't a simple intelligence failure. Everyone and their brother in the intelligence field around the world thought Iraq had this. Bad intelligence that is reinforced by everyone you are in contact with is far different than the Bush people simply making a mistake. Did he surround himself with good people? Yes. But none of those good people were in Iraq getting first-hand info on what was there. They had to work through the same devices that Bush had and therefore were only fed the same misinformation that had been circulating for years before. #2: More like he made the right decision given wrong information. Can you fault him for wanting to eliminate Iraq when every intelligence agency in the world is saying they have weapons that could cause massive amounts of death in populated urban centers? And the CIA isn't part of the White House, dude. Not that he shouldn't fix it, but this was entirely out of his control given the info he was receiving. Can you read minds? So, does having the wrong information make the decision-maker immune from responsibility? Or, should he take the responsibility, instead of passing the buck? Why should he take responsibility for something that was completely out of his power? He took info that he was told was confirmed and correct, and suddenly it turns out it was wrong. Whose fault was it that it was wrong? It isn't as though he's the operative in the field making the mistake. Edit: Hell, under this reasoning, why shouldn't he take responsibility for 9/11? Another intelligence failure, but he's the decision-maker that failed to act. That's the situation here.

They had no WMD so how could they possibly give them up?! Actually, this is wrong. We've found a long range missile program (Documented in the first Kay report, I believe) which was in direct violation of the guidelines outlined in 1441. So yeah.

Well, that was before Dean started showing his ANGRY~! side in Iowa. And watching Dean's speech right now, he's SO doomed. It's like Patrick Roy getting plastered in the 7th game of the Detroit/Colorado series: It's hilarious, but you have to feel kinda sad that it happened. I just wanted to see how insane he went on Bush during the debates. If Bush can get GORE angry with him and keep his own composure, Dean might throw a chair.

And I think many of us can start saying "Ding Dong, Dean is dead". I actually wanted him to take the nomination, sadly. Oh well...

Well, when you put it like that...

That's sort of a contradiction there. I said that they still thought that they had WMDs, just like we did. Everyone thought Iraq had WMDs based on the intelligence everyone was given. Dealing with the problem was where everyone differed. Not until after the war was there any presumption that there might not be WMDs. Of course, this is why it is considered an INTELLIGENCE failure. Every intelligence agency out there thought that Iraq had these. The UN was continuing inspections because they thought they still had them. Iraq had never accounted for hunderds of thousands of chemical shells they had said they had. This was not lying, this was an intelligence failure, and frankly, that's the only part I'm really concerned with. The invasion of Iraq was still justified 6 ways from Sunday simply because of the regieme in power over there. 1) If that's the proof, then why did UN inspectors continually say "We know he's hiding some, we just can't get around him"? I mean, before this war there was no UN inspector who didn't think Saddam had WMDs. The UN obviously thought he had them to continue keeping sactions and inspections on him. 2) Well, they were kind of hand-in-hand; one begets the other and vice-versa.

The United Nations certainly did not agree that Iraq had WMD's. They had inspectors in the country that found nothing. They urged for more time to be given to the inspectors before any action took place. They didn't find anything the first time... yet they continued inspections for 7 more years and kept on sactions specifically because Saddam never gave adequete proof he didn't have them. If they knew there was nothing there, why keep having weapons inspections?

No one will discuss anything. People will just insult each other's opinions and it'll all end up as one big clusterfuck. Still, I can't turn away. It's almost like watching a train wreck. JMA is right. Would this count as trolling and worthy of a ban? I think a better solution would be folder reform. Although, just my saying that is bound to piss people off. Oh well. "If you don't like it you can GEET out!" Capital Punishment, bitch! I don't want any of that namby-pamby hippie reform shit. When I solve a problem I wanna know that that thing is gone.

Bah. I can get that from Howard Dean any day.

No one will discuss anything. People will just insult each other's opinions and it'll all end up as one big clusterfuck. Still, I can't turn away. It's almost like watching a train wreck. JMA is right. Would this count as trolling and worthy of a ban?

... So you are willing to put people out of work, cause a massive backlash on the well-being of the middle class, and quite possibly make the state of the economy worse than what Dubya inherited (Since most economists now agree that the recession was already starting in October of 2000)? And I thought I was supposed to be the heartless one here...

Well, this seems to be an intelligence failure of massive proportions. Just about every intelligence agency in the world was saying the same damn thing about Iraq: They had WMDs and they had always had them. The UN believed the same thing right up until during the war; they only disagreed with how we should go about it. To say that the US and UK blantantly lied is ignoring the fact that their viewpoint on WMDs was the same as just about everyone else's in the world. And no: If anything, they should be rewarded for capturing one of the biggest war-criminals of all time. To call them war criminals for simply enforcing Resolution 1441 (Saddam never did supply adequate proof that he didn't have WMDs during the 12 years after PG1 anyways) is moronic.