Drmiler, "Agent Orange? How far back did you have to dig for that one?" I didn't have to go far back at all since it was raised in this author's ACTUAL article! hahahahha! I only repeated it since that was the focus of the debate. (Which is ridiculous in and of itself since it misses the entire point of the article). While you can argue that Agent Orange wasn't a weapon per se, you can't argue
"Political prisoners are not covered under the Geneva convention" Anyone caputured in the Iraq theatre is not a political prisoner, they are POWs. As such, the Geneva conventions apply. The administration itself declared this so I don't see how the characterization of Iraqi prisoners as "politcal prisoners" applies.
Champas Socialist : "One of the funniest things about writing articles like this one is watching the right wingers get their knickers in a twist over the silliest little things and completely missing the point of the article, as though their little nit picks somehow justifies what successive US Presidents have done." I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Drmiler: "We signed the conventions but the second set was never ratified by the US. So it's non-binding! Do your homework before opening mouth and inserting foot." Using weapons such as Agent Orange, The unprovoked invasion of Iraq and The abuse of prisoners ARE violations of the Geneva conventions and we DID sign them. The only part we didn't sign were the additional protocols which have no bearing on the use of indiscriminate weaponry, th
"Did the US ever actually approve the Geneva Conventions?" Yes, just not the additional Protocols. We signed and ratified the Geneva conventions so they have the same legal effect as federal statutes.
Steven, once again, great article. I would like to comment on something you said: "Had the Saudis not exiled him but actually imprisoned him for subversion, Al Qaeda as we know it today would never have festered its cells in Afghanistan." It is also worth noting that if the U.S. had done a better job dealing with post-Soviet Afghanistan we may have been able to convince Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to stop funding, training, and supplying
Thank you Steven. I value your endorsement of my arguments.
If there is one overarching argument for voting Bush out of office it is this: Bush has damaged America's credibility so much, that only a swift change in leadership can BEGIN to restore it. I am not saying that Kerry can immediately fix or repair America's credibility but getting rid of the man in power who is primarily responsible for its deterioration is a good place to start. A number of arguments can be made as to whether Bush is resp
Philomedy, great article. I can't believe your co-worker was so irresponsible. First, it was deceptive not to clearly tell you that their "friend" was a gay male. Secondly, your co-worker's actions are not demontrative that they are Joey's "friend" at all. Putting him and you in such an awkward stituation could have led to Joey's getting the shit kicked out him or worse. I am not suggesting that you would ever do this and I am thrilled to hear that
Madine: "The problem is though, the belief that life begins at conception and its implications are the foundation of the pro-life movement. It's one thing to say that you don't personally think abortion is good, but it shouldn't be illegal. It's another thing to embrace the philisophical core of anti-abortionism but say it is legally meaningless. Suppose that you believe human life begins at conception. This means that an unborn baby has comparable rig
Drmiler, "The leading "warbloggers" of the time, ranging from Steven Den Beste, Right Wing News, Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, James Lileks, One Hand Clapping, Eject Eject Eject, JoeUser (back when it was just me) and so forth were saying the same things.Anyone who thinks that we invaded Iraq primarily because we thought it contained drums of mustard gas or something is ignorant of the facts and deserves nothing but scorn and contempt for their naivete
Texas Wahine: GREAT JOB in exposing this inaccuracy. stevendedalus: "Awesome sight indeed; but those man hours could be better spent scaring the hell out of al Qaeda." You hit the nail squarely on the head! Although I might add that if this actually WERE a U.S. helicopter in the Afghan theatre, the man hours it would have taken to paint it could have been better spent not only "scaring" hell of al Qaeda, their time would have been better
Messy Buu: "Isn't saying that life doesn't begin at conception as much of an opinion and presumption as saying that life does?" I'm not saying that life does or does not begin at conception and if you accurately read my post, you will see that what I ACTUALLY said was that NO ONE knows when life does or doesn't begin. As such, all we have is speculation and certain religious beliefs on when it does or does not. Since it is merely speculati
Floozie, I'm not sure if your entire post was directed towards me or the discussion in general. I have tried to apply some sound logic to this discussion without being offensive or arrogant. In any event, thanks for the compliment regarding my statement: "The woman got pregnant all on her own? No male participation required? Yet you claim that MEN have the right to tell her what to do about it? Astounding logic."
Daiwa, "We will never be able to parse the nanosecond that divides "pre-life" from "life", at least never to the satisfaction of those who would preserve every egg & every sperm cell as potential human beings." good post. I added more to the theme of your argument above.
MasonM - "I wonder if any of the pro-abortion folks would change their minds if a law were passed allowing for retroactive abortions. Say, when the child is 20, or 30, or 40 the mother has the right to decide to abort that child retroactively. Might solve a lot of problems." The first problem with this line of reasoning is that the government cannot "retroactively" apply a law which imp
Mitch21: "how can a law define life??" Technically, it can't determine when life begins. Neither can science, the government, you, or the psychic down the street. As such, how can you or anyone else for that matter, PRESUME to know when life begins when no one really knows? And since neither you or anyone else can REALLY know when a life begins, why do you and others assume that you do? A
"Think of the woman that kills her unborn child because she cant afford it. The poor woman needs to remain childless because of Americas economic unfairness. She is entitled to the same nice things other people have, and should not have to worry about the burden of a child. Nevermind that the child has an active brain, can respond to it's enviroment and perhaps live outside the womb. It is that womans right.<
"upon his visits to foreign countries he continued to bash our country." Neither Michael Moore nor any other American necessarily leaves their right to free speech at the door when the leave the U.S. He's entitled to voice his opinion regardless of whether we agreee with it or not. Voicing his opinion doesn't mean he's anti-american. Secondly, I don't think the main point of his movie was to "ba
Steven, one more thing..."philosopher king " It's refreshing to run into someone who has actually read "Plato's Republic" or any other classic for that matter.
Thank you Steven.
Madine: “Justice is a battleground in the conservative movement, with the rights of the people to create laws based in moral standards versus the rights of individuals to engage in behavior that is regarded as immoral.” Yes. The people have the right through their representative government to create laws that are necessary to maintain order within the body politic, but when the majority seeks to usurp this power through the legislative/execu
Steven, "If I may add, aggrandizement of the individual is a perversion of the platonic ideal that the person be a philosopher king unto himself by an unselfish probing into the meaning of goodness and justice. Unfortunately the individual is led astray by indulging in his own self-interest regardless of its effect on others." Precisely, so the idea is to continuously strive for a government that balances the interests of the individual, the
BakerStreet, I didn't SAY that Nobel prize winning scientists should dictate anything to society or that they are or should be above public scrutiny. I simply asked you if was fair to summarily dismiss ALL of them and compare them with Arafat? Don't you think ANY of them have ANY level of expertise at all? "It is ignorant, to the extreme, to pretend that the science community has earned some sort of moral autonomy." Well, first of all I didn't say
Robert, great article...I think the Chuch is experiencing a backlash against it's overt attempts to swing the election one way or the other and a backlash against rigid applications of doctrine that most Catholics just simply do not accept. Most Catholics see right through politcal pandering and they don't take too kindly to it. I'm glad the Church is backing away from its former positions.
JoeUser Forums