Bitching, but never solutions...

[Guest Olympic Slam]

S. Korea is pretty decent so that shoudn't be a problem, aside from the economic devastation that Communisn has brougt upon the North. I heard somewhere that the avg. salary in S. Korea is 3 times that of the North.

Let's also not forget that a lot of people in N. Korea have had to resort to cannibalism and eating grass just to survive. Hooray for communism!

[Guest B-X]

Example, the war protests...

 

There is no plan...no WE WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. Its just DONT HAVE A WAR.....not GIVE THE INSPECTIONS MORE TIME......not SEND IN PEACEKEEPERS TO FOLLOW WEAPONS...not MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION WITH IRAQ. Its just DONT FIGHT...nice sentiment but hardly a very meaty solution.

If you actually went to any protests, instead of watching FauxNews, you would have heard plenty of alternative solutions being discussed.

 

WHat does "go finish the business with North Korea" mean then. Clinton and Carter (the foriegn policy wiz kids ) tried diplomacy and brides but all that got us and the world was another nuclear country.

 

Ahem.. Uh, where do you live? Just wondering, because any place that could overlook the ENTIRE 80s and Reagan is pretty high on my "Vacation places to be".

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Shouldn't Hussein's human rights record alone be cause for military action to liberate the Iraqi people and get rid of Hussein.

[Guest B-X]

Civilians are going to be killed though. Hundreds of them, if not more. It's happened in every war we've been involved in. It's happened in unoffical "police actions". We may get a repeat of Vietnam. Remember what they used to say back then?

 

"We had to destroy the village to save it"

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Civilians being killed happens in war. It's unfortunate, and no wants to see it. It's not intentional on the part of the U.S., and Iraqi military installations willl be the target of air strikes. Hussein will place human shields around the installations and than claim that the U.S. is targeting civilians.

 

This could be like Vietnam. You never know what will happen. I would guess the military is considering all scenarios which is why the war hasn't even happened yet. With that being said, every war or military action involving the U.S. since Vietnam was going to be the next Vietnam. Besides the incident in Somalia, which is more the fault of the Rangers not having decent backup, nothing even close to Vietnam has happened.

[Guest DrTom]

Civilians are going to be killed though. Hundreds of them, if not more.

How many do you think have been killed by Hussein and his regime?

[Guest B-X]

Valid point there Tom, however, this does not justify throwing 600 cruise missles at Baghdad.

[Guest DrTom]

Valid point there Tom, however, this does not justify throwing 600 cruise missles at Bahgdad.

That is indeed true. Does anything justify the impending war, in your opinion?

[Guest B-X]

Not completely.

 

I believe Saddam has biological weapons in Iraq. I believe that his continued presense in the Middle East is a negative factor. The fact that the UN inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction can't be ignored though. But it seems the administration is charging head-on into this war without waiting for the inspectors results. That doesnt sit right with me.

 

But the biggest thing that strikes me is that the US has changed direction from finding Al Queda to going after Saddam, citing the fact that there may probably, possibly, MAY BE, a link to Osama Bin Ladin within the Saddam regime. I know I'd be embarressed if I had thousands of trained military men in Afghanistan looking for a 6 foot Saudi on a dialysis machine, and failed.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

U.S. Soldiers didn't really do alot of the searches in Afghanistan. Which was a mistake.

[Guest Prime Time Andrew Doyle]

My opinio is similar to Dennis Millers in regards to both Iraq & N. Korea. The U.S oughta bomb the living hell out of Iraq to send the message "You want some of this fuckers" to N. Korea and all other "rouge"nations

[Guest Olympic Slam]

My opinio is similar to Dennis Millers in regards to both Iraq & N. Korea. The U.S oughta bomb the living hell out of Iraq to send the message "You want some of this fuckers" to N. Korea and all other "rouge"nations

This is something we should have done a couple of months after 9/11 just to show the world that we mean business. God only knows when we'll ever finish doing what it is we're doing in Afghanistan. God only knows when we'll ever confront Iraq. And North Korea and Iran? They're on the bottom of the "to-do list."

[Guest B-X]

Thats still killing innocent people. It'd make about as much sense if someone punched you because they wanted to teach some other kid a lesson.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Abortion has to be THE most complex issue on earth because there are so many different view points. It boggles my mind that anyone could approach the issue without at least incorporating some platforms from either side in their stance. Because of that, people who place abortion at the top of their political litmus test (Diane Feinstein and other feminists) scare me. What makes the issue even MORE confusing is that both sides ARE pro-life. One side wishes to save the life of a future living being. The other wishes to save the life of an established women. Let's face it, an unplanned birth ruins lives. If I were to become a father tommorow, my life as I know it would be OVER. No college, no more time for smarkboard, no time for hockey, no chance to ever become the amazing person I hope to become.

 

BTW Samurai Goat, I just finished Conker's Bad Fur Day and it was indeed awesome. Not Rare's best in my opinion (Banjo 2 all the way) but it's way up there. You must have good taste in games.

And can we at least agree that the Supreme Court did the country a HUGE disservce with Roe v Wade?

 

THIS is an issue that the state's SHOULD have decided.

-=Mike

[Guest DrTom]

THIS is an issue that the state's SHOULD have decided.

Mike, as a fan of the Tenth Amendment, I'd love to agree with you, and I do, but in principle only. The reality is that abortion needs to be federally protected to ensure that the procedure is safe. If some states vote against it, then a woman seeking an abortion has to either drive out of state to get one, or subject herself to the folding table and pocket knife "street clinics" she's likely to find by looking hard enough. No one ever wants to have an abortion, but when the procedure is performed, I think we owe it to the patients to have it be as safe as possible.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

THIS is an issue that the state's SHOULD have decided.

Mike, as a fan of the Tenth Amendment, I'd love to agree with you, and I do, but in principle only. The reality is that abortion needs to be federally protected to ensure that the procedure is safe. If some states vote against it, then a woman seeking an abortion has to either drive out of state to get one, or subject herself to the folding table and pocket knife "street clinics" she's likely to find by looking hard enough. No one ever wants to have an abortion, but when the procedure is performed, I think we owe it to the patients to have it be as safe as possible.

But every state deserves the right to say whether it's legal or illegal in its boundaries. At the time of Roe v Wade, several states had already legalized it (NY had, I believe). If a state wishes to outlaw it, more power to them.

 

I have no personal problem with prostitution --- but I think every state has the right to determine for themselves if they wish for it to be legal or not.

 

This should have been put up to a vote in all of the states. The federal gov't, honestly, has no standing in this issue.

 

While I fully empathize with the plight of the woman here, the people have evey right in the world to debate this issue and decide it themselves, rather than have the Supreme Court hand down an edict from above with spurious, at best, logic.

-=Mike --- There is a reason why abortion is STILL such a hot issue

[Guest DrTom]

But every state deserves the right to say whether it's legal or illegal in its boundaries. At the time of Roe v Wade, several states had already legalized it (NY had, I believe). If a state wishes to outlaw it, more power to them.

Again, in principle, I agree with you. I'd prefer it if the federal government backed out of a lot of things they really don't need to be involved in. And while it can be argued whether they, in the form of the Supreme Court, needed to be involved in the abortion debate, I think they're erring on the side of caution by making sure abortion is federally protected. I guess it comes down to the safety of the women who will undergo the procedure vs. the desire for states' rights.

 

I have no personal problem with prostitution --- but I think every state has the right to determine for themselves if they wish for it to be legal or not.

I agree completely, but I don't see much of a comparison here. The selling of sex for money doesn't compare well to the termination of an unborn fetus, IMO.

 

This should have been put up to a vote in all of the states.

The thing is, if it were, I'm sure it would be adopted almost across the board. The problem area would be the Bible Belt, of course, but more moderate forces might prevail even in there. The problem is, if there's a block of states which ban the procedure and a woman needs to have an abortion to save her life, what then? Let her die in the name of states' rights?

[Guest EricMM]

That's the crux of the issue. An abortion is not like sales tax. It's an operation with the potential effect of saving a life. I don't see how that could be outlawed, considering abortion's circumstances. I'm not saying it should be legal to kill people and harvest their organs to save another's life (which could be construed from my first point, by jerks) but I personally don't believe an unborn 2 month old unborn blob should have the same rights to life as a born person. I think they should have SOME rights to life, but not as much as a living person.

[Guest Some Guy]

WHat does "go finish the business with North Korea" mean then. Clinton and Carter (the foriegn policy wiz kids ) tried diplomacy and brides but all that got us and the world was another nuclear country.

 

Ahem.. Uh, where do you live? Just wondering, because any place that could overlook the ENTIRE 80s and Reagan is pretty high on my "Vacation places to be".

I meant Clinton and Carter (who was sent over there by Clinton) during the Clinton adminstration. They gave North Korea the ability to devolop Nukes, not Reagan.

 

I live just north of Boston and do remember the 80s, at least the last few years, I was born in '81 and have read about a lot more than I remembered from then.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

But every state deserves the right to say whether it's legal or illegal in its boundaries. At the time of Roe v Wade, several states had already legalized it (NY had, I believe). If a state wishes to outlaw it, more power to them.

Again, in principle, I agree with you. I'd prefer it if the federal government backed out of a lot of things they really don't need to be involved in. And while it can be argued whether they, in the form of the Supreme Court, needed to be involved in the abortion debate, I think they're erring on the side of caution by making sure abortion is federally protected. I guess it comes down to the safety of the women who will undergo the procedure vs. the desire for states' rights.

 

I have no personal problem with prostitution --- but I think every state has the right to determine for themselves if they wish for it to be legal or not.

I agree completely, but I don't see much of a comparison here. The selling of sex for money doesn't compare well to the termination of an unborn fetus, IMO.

 

This should have been put up to a vote in all of the states.

The thing is, if it were, I'm sure it would be adopted almost across the board. The problem area would be the Bible Belt, of course, but more moderate forces might prevail even in there. The problem is, if there's a block of states which ban the procedure and a woman needs to have an abortion to save her life, what then? Let her die in the name of states' rights?

But it's not erring on the side of caution to say it's legal. It's simply not permitting debate. The states should have been allowed to decide that, for that state, it is simply not legal. If you don't like it, leave. It's not the nicest and sweetest sentiment --- but every state deserved that right.

 

The prostitution v abortion debate, to me, is quite comparable. It's a MORAL issue and it should be the state's decision to make. If the federal gov't has no standing, the states should be given the opportunity to decide for themselves.

 

If several states decide that abortion is illegal --- that's the way it goes. It's like saying that states that outlawed the death penalty have no problem with murderers. The states should have the right to make the choice. It's not always nice and friendly.

-=Mike