Filibuster Busters

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I still don't understand the "shove religious beliefs down everyones throats" thing. If you are referring to ballot initiatives on gay marriage, those pass with typically 70%, so it isn't republicans alone. Clinton signed the "defense of marriage act".

It's not just about gay marriage though. It's also the congress feeling they were above the law with Terry Shaivo. It's because of the abstinance-only approach. It's because of the faith-based initiatives. It's because of the attempts to limit stem-cell research. Religion is the reason for each of these policies, regardless of whether logic or law, or in the case of marriage, decency, gets in the way.

The invade countries - we know where I stand on that. It was completely legal due to the violation of the gulf war I cease fire.

Interesting that this wasn't the justification given. Also interesting that the reasons given fell apart like a house of cards.

And putting aside the word "legal" for a moment, do you think it was the right thing to do? Do you think that the loss of 1600 American soldiers (and rising) and the tens of thousands of innocent civilian deaths were worth the capture of a dictator? Do you think it was worth the costs? I would sincerely like to hear your justifications, not for it being legal but for it being the right thing to do. Because, I am having a real hard time correlating this war with a "culture of life" that Bush says is so important to him.

I realize that you don't think the dems are the answer to everything, and I don't think the reps are, either. Unfortunately, a third party is just not going to happen.

Well, not for a long time at least. I never said that it would happen, only that it needs to happen.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

And putting aside the word "legal" for a moment, do you think it was the right thing to do?

I do.

While the spin has been to put the blame on the intelligence community of the USA, it is fact that the intelligence agencies of Egypt, Russia, and England (and others, I believe) all told us the same thing. It is a fact that Saddam had used them in the past. It is a fact that he had offered safe harbor to Osama. It is a fact that he had repeatedly violated cease fire agreements on unfettered inpections.

In the post 9/11 world, when you have someone who has used WMD, refuses to abide by a cease fire agreement, is making overtures to terrorists who attacked us, and many intelligence agencies confirmed what our intelligence agencies said with regard to WMD, it was the right thing to do.

I report my arguments of old not in the interest of rehashing debate on the point, but solely because I was asked. I realize many disagree. My opinion is based on the facts that I have listed.

Loss of our soldiers is a sad thing. Loss of innocent civilians is a sad thing. I again point out that only 20% or so of the population of our original 13 colonies wanted independence from England, but it was the right thing to do. Many died. Soldiers and innocent civilians. Doing what is right often has a high price associateds with it.

Edited to add: You point out that "this wasn't the reason given" as justification for the invasion. In fact, the violations of the cease fire were at the forefront. We continued to give Saddam opportunity after opportunity to abide by the agreement and give complete and unfettered access to inspect wherever we wanted without warning, as was stipulated in the cease fire. He would not. This is what 17 (or so) UN resolutions dealt with. Because of those violations, we could not verify or disprove what the intellegence reports of so many countries told us.