<p>Oh, and about euthanasia... not everybody would agree it's a bad thing... I don't.</p>
<p>"Yeah, plus 2 appointed by him... that's 4 out of 9... looks like a lot to me..."
Yea, its pretty much equal...Kennedy is more or less a swing vote</p>
<p>"Liberals tolerate religion up to the point of even embracing it sometimes"
Haha, you act like liberals aren't religious either. I was just saying how ironic it was that MM doesn't mind the religion now, but he did before. Not trying to make this religious</p>
<p>"I'm sorry, I just don't recall this..."
during re-elections, when he would go to christian groups to campaign...i know people who would be all over that</p>
<p>"By the way... maybe I'm wrong, but if all Bush wanted is to free the world from a dictator that possesed WMD, why Irak and not N. Korea, which even admitts to having WMD, or Iran? If he really wants to promote freedom, why does the US trades with China, a country with regular human rights' violations?"</p>
<p>You're exactly right, I never said I like what Bush does...just don't say you people didn't vote for it either.<br>
And about the article...the liberals bought it, they ate it up and voted to go into Iraq so I don't wanna hear it.</p>
<p>Certain circumstances permitting, Euthanasia is legit.</p>
<p>"during re-elections, when he would go to christian groups to campaign...i know people who would be all over that"
Maybe because he makes certain promises to earn votes from them... like passing religious-biased laws...</p>
<p>"Certain circumstances permitting, Euthanasia is legit."
Yes, but despite Republicans... I didn't say its illegal. It is legal, and so is abortion in many states. Still, many conservatives want to ban it.</p>
<p>"And about the article...the liberals bought it, they ate it up and voted to go into Iraq so I don't wanna hear it."
Cheney is quotes saying that Saddam will get WMD soon... that means he doesn't have them the moment he is speaking, days before invading Iraq. Those are Cheney's word, so...
And yes, many Democrats voted for the war on Iraq. I've never say they are perfect.. in many issues they are less liberal than what I would like... still they are more liberal than the GOP..</p>
<p>The Democrats' religious belief: "If it feels good, do it."</p>
<p>God forbid should anyone have morals and a conscience in this country.</p>
<p>you want them to be more liberal? more liberal then lets say...barbara boxer?</p>
<p>true though, I can see how he could make certain promises...but just having a convo with a liberal...and religion comes up, they never take anyone seriously after that</p>
<p>Well conservatives want to ban abortion and such, I can see them keeping on the same wagon and wanting to ban Euthanasia too</p>
<p>If Congress had voted not to invade Iraq in the face of an attack on our home soil and overwhemling (now debunked!) evidence linking Iraq to WMDs (BS), many Senators, Reps (D and R alike) would not have won a second term. </p>
<p>Basically, the Bush Admin really screwed that whole democracy thing up. I really don't think Congress should be blamed, I think the blame falls more on the shoulders of the CIA and various bogus intelligence agencies that think a mascara wand might somehow be used to hijack a place...enough about that.</p>
<p>My mother often tells me that she would be Republican if it weren't for those Evangelicals/neocons. I feel the similar. Many politicians (yes, Dems too) use homegrown American faith (Evangelicalism) to manipulate voters. Furthermore these politicians display a surprising amount of ignorance towards scientific advancement. It's just plain sad people.</p>
<p>"I really don't think Congress should be blamed, I think the blame falls more on the shoulders of the CIA and various bogus intelligence agencies"</p>
<p>I feel the same way...it was their fault in the first place. People just need to know that the iraq war was not one such parties fault.</p>
<p>"My mother often tells me that she would be Republican if it weren't for those Evangelicals/neocons. I feel the similar. Many politicians (yes, Dems too) use homegrown American faith (Evangelicalism) to manipulate voters. Furthermore these politicians display a surprising amount of ignorance towards scientific advancement. It's just plain sad people."</p>
<p>Be Independent...because everyone knows we're the ones that win the elections anyway :)</p>
<p>"God forbid should anyone have morals and a conscience in this country."
Again, the problem isn't with people having morals or conscience, is them trying to legislate their own ideas of what is good and what's bad based on their religions.</p>
<p>"you want them to be more liberal? more liberal then lets say...barbara boxer?"
In average...</p>
<p>"If Congress had voted not to invade Iraq in the face of an attack on our home soil and overwhemling (now debunked!) evidence linking Iraq to WMDs (BS), many Senators, Reps (D and R alike) would not have won a second term."
Intel is suppoused to have said Iraq had WMD... but not that it was related to 9/11... and having WMD alone isn't good enough, since N. Korea has WMD, admitts to having it, blatantly opposes inspections or any sort of UN control, and hasn't been invaded.</p>
<p>^ Woah. Okay, first let me say that I have read your previous posts on this thread and I agree with you on almost everything, EXCEPT THIS POINT. </p>
<p>First, SADDAM DID NOT HAVE A NUKE!! OMG! Please do NOT compare Korea to Iraq...KIM JONG HAS A NUKE AND HE IS INSANE! Literally, this man is INSANE. Second, he has not NUKED Us. HE HAS NOT FLEWN (sp?) PLANES INTO ANY BUILDINGS RECENTLY! okay, my use of caps is rapidly losing its effect, so I have to type in lower for a bit, if Kim Jong did NUKE US, WE WOULD INVADE HIM! SO WOULD THE REST OF THE WESTERN WORLD! JESUS CHRIST I THINK ISRAEL MIGHT EVEN NUKE HIM! okay. there. Please don't say stupid things, I mean c'mon, I hate to use vulgar language, but Iraq was a poor, stupid little country and Saddam is NOTHING compared to Kim JOng. In fact, Saddam DESPISED al qaida. He had no links to those terrorist organizations (only to be found out three years after too many girls and boys have been killed in Iraq fighting for a...er...cause) KIM JONG IS INSANE, Saddam was just cruel. TOO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THIGNS. AND AGAIN, I REITERATE, IF KIM JONG DID NUKE US, WE WOULD INVADE, ALONG WITH JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA, CHINA, RUSSIA (YES, RUSSIA), ALL OF EUROPE, HECK, MAYBE AUSTRALIA WOULD EVEN COMMIT A FEW TROOPS (IT'S ABOUT TIME) BECUASE NO ONE WANTS KIM JONG GOING AROND NUKING PEOPLE, ESP THE U.S. BECAUSE, AS MUCH AS THEY HATE US, C'MON WE'RE A PRETTY COOL COUNTRY WITH A LOT OF METH LABS AND FAT PEOPLE. There. I'm done. PLEASE don't be stupid. Again.</p>
<p>I agree with you. Absolutly. In my last post I said, and I quote "Intel is suppoused to have said Iraq had WMD"... I said that in order to then said that even IF that intel existed, and HAD IT BEEN legit, it wouldn't have been enough reason to invade Iraq, which is pretty much what you are saying. Maybe you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough.</p>
<p>Anyway, good to see someone critizing me for not being liberal ENOUGH... even if that's because I was misunderstood...</p>
<p>OK, I see what you are saying. But four years ago everyone thought Saddam had been behind the attacks, (which just proves how easy it is to manipulate the public) and that would have been a good reason to retaliate. Although, war is always the result of a failure of diplomacy and one might argue the United States brought this on themselves. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the American people have never faced a situation anything near the Middle East conflict challenging us today. Vietnam cannot even really compare, because Vietnam was a guerrilla war from the beginning whereas Iraq began as a cohesive effort and then rapidly degenerated into a messy civil war. Furthermore, the Iraq war, only one prong of the war against terrorism, involves a complex Islamic component, which gives the war a whole different perspective. The Islamofascists (OK, I can't think of a better word) are living to die, basically. They do not need to live, in fact, it is an honor to die. So, what are we really solving by fighting? However, KIM JONG IL needs his people, his state, his nuclear program to thrive and ultimately succeed...so, if he were to attack us (unlikely at this point), invading N. Korea would be an effective solution (overthrow his state, diminish his power). In Iraq, invading is not affective because terrorists do not need a state to survive and see death as paradise.</p>
<p>"OK, I see what you are saying. But four years ago everyone thought Saddam had been behind the attacks, (which just proves how easy it is to manipulate the public) and that would have been a good reason to retaliate."
It would have. But c'mon, there was no real link. I could believe that faulty intelligence pointed to Saddam had WMD, but I can't believe it pointed to Saddam being linked with Al-Quaeda whem they hate each other over religious reasons.</p>
<p>My point about N. Korea was to answer Iraq having WMD being a valid reason to attack it. If the US wants to attack countries that pose a nuclear thread, the logic target would have been N. Korea.</p>
<p>So, what I was saying is that all the reasons used to invade Iraq (except the one related to 9/11, that, again, I can't believe there was actual intelligence on this) could have been applied, in a more resonable way, to attack N. Korea instead of Iraq.
Then, with N. Korea being a much more sensible target than Iraq if wanting to assure US' security, then you can use those reasons to justify invading Iraq.</p>
<p>Ah, so you think we should have invaded N. Korea instead of Iraq? Well, Korea is certainly a threat, no doubt about that, but how would Bush have explained this to the American people? </p>
<p>Second, the thought of Bush Administration handling a war in N. Korea, which would be ten times as deadly as what we face in Iraq, (the Bush Admin calculated an expected death toll in case we ever do have to invade Korea, and it is about the same as WWII), is just plain scary. </p>
<p>Moreover, if the US did decide to invade N Korea it would be a purely unilateral effort, as Russia, China and Western Europe are not very confident in the US' abilities after Iraq and Kim Jong hasn't necessarily gone far enough to warrant an invasion, and we all know how well unilateral efforts work (Iraq!).</p>
<p>So, N. Korea is a much greater threat than Iraq because this war would involve a nuke. There is no doubt that Kim Jong would wield his nuke if we invaded his country. That would set off a terrible war, because then we might use OUR nuke. </p>
<p>You pointed out that it is logical to attack countries that pose a nuclear threat. That is an extremely superficial way to look at nuclear politics. First of all, there are almost 7 countries in the nuclear club. Granted, these nations are not as illegitimate or incompetent as Kim Jong Il, but it does greatly affect the way the US operates internationally. If the US were to attack Korea for obtaining nuclear capabilities without US approval (what does that really mean anymore?), these nations would be on the defensive, fearing that their nuclear programs would be attacked by the US too, and might form a coalition against the US, which would be a very frightening move for US interests. Right now, the safest move is for the US to continue multilateral talks with Korea, possibly leading them to disarm. </p>
<p>SO, my friend, I see what you are saying...but please do not simplify the situation...no two conflicts, even if they are both nuclear, can be compared. The Korea discussion (discussion?) is unique...Iraq is unique. </p>
<p>Now, I CAN see a justification for invading Iran if they obtain nuclear capabilities (~5 yrs). First because the rules would be completely different than those in a war with Korea. Iranian war policies follow Islamic law (which is both the legal system and the religious law), which justifies killing non-Muslims (to allow for the 12 imam's Second Coming...similar to Christ and the evangelical's desire to free the Holy Lands, i.e. their pro-Israeli policy). Although President Makmoud Admeninehjad is both nationalistic and terrorist, his people follow Islam, and do not see earth as their destination, but a paradise after death, so death only increases their power. Thus, Iran having a nuke is much more frightening than Korea having a nuke because Iran does not see a nation as the ultimate destination, but a paradise after death. Furthermore, Iranian law prescribes the killing of all Non-Muslims in order to fulfill the Prophet Muhammad's (sp?) wishes. So, attacking non-Muslim countries (such as the US) would accelerate the Prophet's Second Coming and the fulfillment of a Paradise on earth. Although President Makmoud probably is too educated to actually believe this stuff, it is a convenient way to explain why he wants to begin a nuclear program.</p>