Please, can someone help me understand?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
It's not just Irak... unfortunately the cancer goes deeper.

I can't get into details much, but I'm copying and pasting the close-captioning of a report that aired tonight on the French-language CBC about the U.S. elections. Those of you who speak French will be able to figure things out. Otherwise, you can try and run it through a translator.




Le résultat de l'élection du 2 novembre aux etats-unis est franchement impossible prévoir. Si la participation est forte, ça voudra dire que les américains ont quelque chose exprimer.

Ce qu'on note actuellement, c'est que la droite chrétienne, depuis des mois, fait campagne pour inciter les électeurs religieux exercer leur droit de vote.

Et ça, ce serait l'avantage des républicains parce que 70 % de ceux qui se définissent comme "protestants évangéliques" appuient la réélection de george W. Bush.

Julie miville-dechne, dans ce troisime regard sur les etats-unis, a choisi de replonger dans le sud religieux,

à oklahoma, qui a été ébranlée le 19 avril 1995 par l'attentat qui avait fait 168 morts.

Oklahoma est au coeur du bible belt, le sud religieux des etats-unis.

Personne ne symbolise mieux qu'arlene blanchard la place centrale qu'occupe la foi dans les épreuves que la ville a traversées.

Le sergent blanchard était dans l'édifice murrah quand la bombe a explosé.

>> Sa vie a basculé. Elle a cherché refuge dans l'alcool. Elle a songé au suicide.

Sa soif de vengeance contre l'auteur de ce carnage, tim mcveigh, un ancien soldat américain comme elle, a failli la détruire.

>> Mme blanchard a puisé dans la bible la force de pardonner.

D'ailleurs, elle s'est entourée dans son quotidien de versets du livre saint.


>> Une passion pour le christ qui l'a convaincue de fonder un ministre religieux pour prcher l'observance stricte de l'evangile.

>> Au-del de l'attentat, on est saisi, en revenant en oklahoma, par l'omniprésence de la religion dans plein d'autres aspects de la vie.

Un exemple : Nous sommes ici dans un cours ouvertement chrétien de prévention du divorce.

>> Ce qui est surprenant, c'est que 1 600 de ces ateliers ont déj été subventionnés par l'etat qui pige les millions nécessaires

mme les fonds destinés combattre la pauvreté.

Mary myrick,

oklahoma marriage initiative

>> La plupart des gens aboutissent l'aide sociale, car ils ont eu de mauvaises relations de couple. Quand ils participent aux ateliers, ils voient quoi ressemble une relation saine.

Tim hart,

conseiller matrimonial

>> Ailleurs, les gens ont des relations sexuelles en dehors du mariage alors qu'ici, les couples se marient trs jeunes, avant d'tre prts. Leurs chances de réussite sont minces.

>> La pression sociale fait qu'en oklahoma, on se marie plus jeune et bien davantage qu'ailleurs aux etats-unis.

>> C'est pour la vie. Nous avons été élevés par des parents qui sont restés mariés toute leur vie. Nous ne changerons pas.

>> En dépit des voeux sincres le grand jour, l'oklahoma est devenu le deuxime etat américain ou l'on divorce le plus. Un triste record pour les politiciens chrétiens de l'etat qui ont promis de réduire ce taux de divorce d'un tiers d'ici 2010.

>> C'est un objectif ambitieux. Les gens sont croyants et pratiquants en oklahoma.

Parler du concept religieux du mariage, c'est ce que les consommateurs veulent.

>> J'aime mieux que l'enseignement ici soit basé sur la bible, car c'est la parole de dieu.

Dieu a créé le mariage, dieu a créé le monde. Je préfre me fier lui.

>> Nous sommes amoureux depuis l'école secondaire. Nous sommes ensemble depuis quatre ans.

>> Parfois, les filles tombent enceintes trs jeunes. Alors, elles se marient.

>> Dans la salle, une universitaire californienne amasse des données depuis six mois pour documenter ce qui, ses yeux, est un amalgame inquiétant entre la religion et la politique.

Melanie heath, chercheuse,

université du sud californie

>> Ma premire journée en oklahoma, je l'ai passée dans une manifestation contre le mariage homosexuel.

J'ai été choquée par le fait que les politiciens parlaient ouvertement de dieu et des etats-unis comme étant une nation chrétienne.

Je me suis dit : C'est vraiment différent ici. Il y a une confusion trs forte entre l'eglise et l'etat.


>> L'intervention de l'etat dans l'institution du mariage en oklahoma va trs loin.

Le 2 novembre, les oklahomans choisiront non seulement leur président, mais ils décideront par référendum s'ils interdisent le mariage gai dans leur constitution. Une croisade qui mobilise la droite chrétienne et les églises.

>> Un appel au vote en pleine église : Impensable au canada. Et l'on n'hésite pas dire aux fidles comment voter en projetant au-dessus de l'autel ce message d'un sénateur républicain.

>> Le canada y est mme accusé,

>> Le canada y est mme accusé,

tort, de restreindre la liberté religieuse.

>> Ce jour-l, on célébrait aussi la journée nationale de protection du mariage traditionnel en remettant des médailles aux couples méritants, tout cela sur fond de propagande.

Michael jestes, conseil de la

famille de l'oklahoma

>> Le mariage est un acte de foi. Mais le mariage entre un homme et une femme apporte aussi des bénéfices économiques notre pays. Il améliore la santé physique et psychologique de nos enfants.


>> Des valeurs conservatrices que partage arlene blanchard. Pour elle, le mariage homosexuel est immoral.

>> Ce dogmatisme religieux est la norme en oklahoma.

Parmi les croyants, quelques voix minoritaires s'élvent tout de mme contre l'utilisation de dieu comme outil politique.

>> Moi, je crois que c'est dangereux. Parce que dire quelqu'un de voter pour des raisons religieuses, on se dit : Est-ce que je suis obligé de faire cela pour tre un bon chrétien, mme pour tre accepté dans mon milieu chrétien?

>> En fait, l'équation est simple : Les deux tiers de ceux qui vont l'église chaque semaine votent républicain.

Et cela est vrai, mme en oklahoma, ou 20 % des emplois manufacturiers se sont volatilisés sous le rgne de george W. Bush.

>> Nous avons un grand président. Il choisit les bonnes causes, il parle au nom de la majorité.

>> Et en oklahoma, la lutte si controversée de bush contre le terrorisme semble paradoxalement un facteur de plus en sa faveur.

>> Le président bush a beaucoup fait pour ramener un sentiment de sécurité ici.

Oui, des gens sont morts en irak. Mon fils et mon mari sont dans l'arméE. Mais si la guerre permet aux irakiens d'obtenir nos libertés et si elle nous permet d'tre plus en sécurité, je suis prte sacrifier ma vie pour cela.

>> Le bible belt sera donc, cette fois encore, la base électorale la plus solide du président sortant.




Julie miville-dechne, bonsoir.

>> Bonsoir.

>> Est-ce que c'est ma génération que je trahis ou j'ai l'impression de me retrouver avant la révolution tranquille?

>> Ecoutez, je vous avoue que ça m'a frappée aussi, le cté cru du message politique en pleine église.

Mais ce qui est remarquable, bernard, c'est que l-bas, c'est fait avec un grand naturel. Pour eux, ce n'est pas une controverse. En fait, ils disent qu'ils ne font qu'affirmer le message de dieu.

Mais ce n'est pas étonnant, donc, que ces gens-l se reconnaissent dans george W. Bush qui est aprs tout, quand mme, le président le plus ouvertement religieux de l'histoire américaine.

Et ce genre d'appel au vote en pleine église, l, ça n'a pas lieu seulement qu'en oklahoma. Ca a lieu un peu partout aux etats-unis. Parce que les républicains sont convaincus qu'il y a 4 millions d'électeurs chrétiens trs conservateurs qui n'ont pas voté en 2000. Et ça, dans une élection serrée, ça fait une différence.

>> Mais dites-moi une chose, vous tes arrivée aux etats-unis en 1994, il y a 10 ans. Est-ce que ds lors, vous avez constaté la place importante que tenait la religion dans les politiques ou est-ce que c'est plus marqué depuis que bush est au pouvoir?

>> Ecoutez, déj, moi, j'ai couvert bill clinton et déj, ses discours étaient ponctués de références dieu.

Et aussi, n'oubliez pas john kerry, le démocrate cette fois. Dans son dernier débat, il a fait référence dieu 10 fois pendant le débat. Et il a mme dit que la question de l'avortement était une question à régler entre une femme, dieu et son médecin.

Donc, on le voit, mme kerry, la catholique, essaie de convaincre une partie de cet électorat religieux de voter pour lui.

Bien sr, dans le cas de george bush, c'est fait avec beaucoup plus d'intensité. Il essaie d'imposer ses valeurs toute l'amérique, qu'on pense l'avortement, qu'on pense aussi à la question du mariage homosexuel.

sorry, i dont speak pussy.

I'd say a ban for this fvckwad is LONG overdue.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
CW: So you're saying that anyone who votes for Bush does so out of what amounts to ignorance. You qualify this by circular logic - that no amount of thought, fact-finding, or other mechanisms can remove this ignorance, as it is ingrained in my very being. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. It's one thing to weave a logical argument, but it's another to weave a logical trap that anyone who disagrees with you automatically falls into.

M: None the less you did.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Crimson
Because invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Exactly.:beer:

CsG

How can the right thing to do coexist with it being an illegal thing to do? That kind of reasoning seems to suggest that it the result of an illegal act proves to be beneficial then it is or ought to be legal... Sorta Bonnie and Clyde-ish. Maybe not 'ought to be'... rather... is by consequence legal having removed from the 'books' any relationship to the illegality of the act..

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Crimson
Because invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Exactly.:beer:

CsG

How can the right thing to do coexist with it being an illegal thing to do? That kind of reasoning seems to suggest that it the result of an illegal act proves to be beneficial then it is or ought to be legal... Sorta Bonnie and Clyde-ish. Maybe not 'ought to be'... rather... is by consequence legal having removed from the 'books' any relationship to the illegality of the act..
Evil always has an excuse.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I won't vote for President Bush because of the Invasion of Iraq. I find it to be an illegal act. I find the dialog by the various Administration Officials that occurred before and during and after to be nothing but a display of arrogance and worse it suborned the lie of others.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Crimson
Because invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Exactly.:beer:

CsG

How can the right thing to do coexist with it being an illegal thing to do? That kind of reasoning seems to suggest that it the result of an illegal act proves to be beneficial then it is or ought to be legal... Sorta Bonnie and Clyde-ish. Maybe not 'ought to be'... rather... is by consequence legal having removed from the 'books' any relationship to the illegality of the act..
Evil always has an excuse.

That is another dilema I have... If Bush speaks to God and if God leads Bush to do illegal (Render unto Ceasar) things then my God and his God ain't the same God!

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Saddam was NOT an imminent threat. No way. No how. Now stop the spin.
I said so, so stop disagreeing with me! You sound like you're 12.
Originally posted by: Engineer
eventually is a really long time. And it was not a fact.....only a theory...something that could not be prooved or disprooved. I would not even all this a hypothesis....because it was an uneducated guess.
Yes, never mind the fact that Saddam himself has admitted to it. How uneducated of me to even imply that. :roll:

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Iraq or Iran would now have WMD. Either way, you would say Bush made the wrong move. Just as you'd blame him if he did nothing and we were attacked again. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CW: So you're saying that anyone who votes for Bush does so out of what amounts to ignorance. You qualify this by circular logic - that no amount of thought, fact-finding, or other mechanisms can remove this ignorance, as it is ingrained in my very being. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. It's one thing to weave a logical argument, but it's another to weave a logical trap that anyone who disagrees with you automatically falls into.

M: None the less you did.
Yes, you wove your argument so that anyone who responded to it is automatically wrong. How clever. :roll: Unfortunately, this would require your original statements to be fact-based, which they aren't. You consider them facts, but I do not. Neither of us can prove that we are right, so they amount to an opinion. Thus, your original trap is moot.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
How can the right thing to do coexist with it being an illegal thing to do? That kind of reasoning seems to suggest that it the result of an illegal act proves to be beneficial then it is or ought to be legal... Sorta Bonnie and Clyde-ish. Maybe not 'ought to be'... rather... is by consequence legal having removed from the 'books' any relationship to the illegality of the act..
The law is hardly a good way to gauge morality. Many things I would deem 'right' are illegal, and many things that I deem 'wrong' are legal. Sure, it 'ought' to be as you say, but it ain't.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Crimson
Because invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Exactly.:beer:

CsG

How can the right thing to do coexist with it being an illegal thing to do? That kind of reasoning seems to suggest that it the result of an illegal act proves to be beneficial then it is or ought to be legal... Sorta Bonnie and Clyde-ish. Maybe not 'ought to be'... rather... is by consequence legal having removed from the 'books' any relationship to the illegality of the act..

Ofcourse you have to accept your premise that it was "illegal" - which is a matter of opinion. An opinion I don't hold(obviously).

CsG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CW,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: LunarRay
How can the right thing to do coexist with it being an illegal thing to do? That kind of reasoning seems to suggest that it the result of an illegal act proves to be beneficial then it is or ought to be legal... Sorta Bonnie and Clyde-ish. Maybe not 'ought to be'... rather... is by consequence legal having removed from the 'books' any relationship to the illegality of the act..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The law is hardly a good way to gauge morality. Many things I would deem 'right' are illegal, and many things that I deem 'wrong' are legal. Sure, it 'ought' to be as you say, but it ain't.

Don't much matter what you or I deem to be legal and right now does it.. It is what the law IS and what Bush swore to defend. He violated the law... the law of the US and International Law. I don't care if it was moral or amoral it was illegal and he is the one vested with the responsibilty to defend the law above all personal feelings to the contrary. Just as you and I are obliged to obey the law regardless of how we feel about it. Change the law but don't violate it. The law is all we have to protect what we believe in. We need folks in office that will not pick and choose which laws to obey and which to enforce..
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
It's not just Irak... unfortunately the cancer goes deeper.

I can't get into details much, but I'm copying and pasting the close-captioning of a report that aired tonight on the French-language CBC about the U.S. elections. Those of you who speak French will be able to figure things out. Otherwise, you can try and run it through a translator.




Le résultat de l'élection du 2 novembre aux etats-unis est franchement impossible prévoir. Si la participation est forte, ça voudra dire que les américains ont quelque chose exprimer.

Ce qu'on note actuellement, c'est que la droite chrétienne, depuis des mois, fait campagne pour inciter les électeurs religieux exercer leur droit de vote.

Et ça, ce serait l'avantage des républicains parce que 70 % de ceux qui se définissent comme "protestants évangéliques" appuient la réélection de george W. Bush.

Julie miville-dechne, dans ce troisime regard sur les etats-unis, a choisi de replonger dans le sud religieux,

à oklahoma, qui a été ébranlée le 19 avril 1995 par l'attentat qui avait fait 168 morts.

Oklahoma est au coeur du bible belt, le sud religieux des etats-unis.

Personne ne symbolise mieux qu'arlene blanchard la place centrale qu'occupe la foi dans les épreuves que la ville a traversées.

Le sergent blanchard était dans l'édifice murrah quand la bombe a explosé.

>> Sa vie a basculé. Elle a cherché refuge dans l'alcool. Elle a songé au suicide.

Sa soif de vengeance contre l'auteur de ce carnage, tim mcveigh, un ancien soldat américain comme elle, a failli la détruire.

>> Mme blanchard a puisé dans la bible la force de pardonner.

D'ailleurs, elle s'est entourée dans son quotidien de versets du livre saint.


>> Une passion pour le christ qui l'a convaincue de fonder un ministre religieux pour prcher l'observance stricte de l'evangile.

>> Au-del de l'attentat, on est saisi, en revenant en oklahoma, par l'omniprésence de la religion dans plein d'autres aspects de la vie.

Un exemple : Nous sommes ici dans un cours ouvertement chrétien de prévention du divorce.

>> Ce qui est surprenant, c'est que 1 600 de ces ateliers ont déj été subventionnés par l'etat qui pige les millions nécessaires

mme les fonds destinés combattre la pauvreté.

Mary myrick,

oklahoma marriage initiative

>> La plupart des gens aboutissent l'aide sociale, car ils ont eu de mauvaises relations de couple. Quand ils participent aux ateliers, ils voient quoi ressemble une relation saine.

Tim hart,

conseiller matrimonial

>> Ailleurs, les gens ont des relations sexuelles en dehors du mariage alors qu'ici, les couples se marient trs jeunes, avant d'tre prts. Leurs chances de réussite sont minces.

>> La pression sociale fait qu'en oklahoma, on se marie plus jeune et bien davantage qu'ailleurs aux etats-unis.

>> C'est pour la vie. Nous avons été élevés par des parents qui sont restés mariés toute leur vie. Nous ne changerons pas.

>> En dépit des voeux sincres le grand jour, l'oklahoma est devenu le deuxime etat américain ou l'on divorce le plus. Un triste record pour les politiciens chrétiens de l'etat qui ont promis de réduire ce taux de divorce d'un tiers d'ici 2010.

>> C'est un objectif ambitieux. Les gens sont croyants et pratiquants en oklahoma.

Parler du concept religieux du mariage, c'est ce que les consommateurs veulent.

>> J'aime mieux que l'enseignement ici soit basé sur la bible, car c'est la parole de dieu.

Dieu a créé le mariage, dieu a créé le monde. Je préfre me fier lui.

>> Nous sommes amoureux depuis l'école secondaire. Nous sommes ensemble depuis quatre ans.

>> Parfois, les filles tombent enceintes trs jeunes. Alors, elles se marient.

>> Dans la salle, une universitaire californienne amasse des données depuis six mois pour documenter ce qui, ses yeux, est un amalgame inquiétant entre la religion et la politique.

Melanie heath, chercheuse,

université du sud californie

>> Ma premire journée en oklahoma, je l'ai passée dans une manifestation contre le mariage homosexuel.

J'ai été choquée par le fait que les politiciens parlaient ouvertement de dieu et des etats-unis comme étant une nation chrétienne.

Je me suis dit : C'est vraiment différent ici. Il y a une confusion trs forte entre l'eglise et l'etat.


>> L'intervention de l'etat dans l'institution du mariage en oklahoma va trs loin.

Le 2 novembre, les oklahomans choisiront non seulement leur président, mais ils décideront par référendum s'ils interdisent le mariage gai dans leur constitution. Une croisade qui mobilise la droite chrétienne et les églises.

>> Un appel au vote en pleine église : Impensable au canada. Et l'on n'hésite pas dire aux fidles comment voter en projetant au-dessus de l'autel ce message d'un sénateur républicain.

>> Le canada y est mme accusé,

>> Le canada y est mme accusé,

tort, de restreindre la liberté religieuse.

>> Ce jour-l, on célébrait aussi la journée nationale de protection du mariage traditionnel en remettant des médailles aux couples méritants, tout cela sur fond de propagande.

Michael jestes, conseil de la

famille de l'oklahoma

>> Le mariage est un acte de foi. Mais le mariage entre un homme et une femme apporte aussi des bénéfices économiques notre pays. Il améliore la santé physique et psychologique de nos enfants.


>> Des valeurs conservatrices que partage arlene blanchard. Pour elle, le mariage homosexuel est immoral.

>> Ce dogmatisme religieux est la norme en oklahoma.

Parmi les croyants, quelques voix minoritaires s'élvent tout de mme contre l'utilisation de dieu comme outil politique.

>> Moi, je crois que c'est dangereux. Parce que dire quelqu'un de voter pour des raisons religieuses, on se dit : Est-ce que je suis obligé de faire cela pour tre un bon chrétien, mme pour tre accepté dans mon milieu chrétien?

>> En fait, l'équation est simple : Les deux tiers de ceux qui vont l'église chaque semaine votent républicain.

Et cela est vrai, mme en oklahoma, ou 20 % des emplois manufacturiers se sont volatilisés sous le rgne de george W. Bush.

>> Nous avons un grand président. Il choisit les bonnes causes, il parle au nom de la majorité.

>> Et en oklahoma, la lutte si controversée de bush contre le terrorisme semble paradoxalement un facteur de plus en sa faveur.

>> Le président bush a beaucoup fait pour ramener un sentiment de sécurité ici.

Oui, des gens sont morts en irak. Mon fils et mon mari sont dans l'arméE. Mais si la guerre permet aux irakiens d'obtenir nos libertés et si elle nous permet d'tre plus en sécurité, je suis prte sacrifier ma vie pour cela.

>> Le bible belt sera donc, cette fois encore, la base électorale la plus solide du président sortant.




Julie miville-dechne, bonsoir.

>> Bonsoir.

>> Est-ce que c'est ma génération que je trahis ou j'ai l'impression de me retrouver avant la révolution tranquille?

>> Ecoutez, je vous avoue que ça m'a frappée aussi, le cté cru du message politique en pleine église.

Mais ce qui est remarquable, bernard, c'est que l-bas, c'est fait avec un grand naturel. Pour eux, ce n'est pas une controverse. En fait, ils disent qu'ils ne font qu'affirmer le message de dieu.

Mais ce n'est pas étonnant, donc, que ces gens-l se reconnaissent dans george W. Bush qui est aprs tout, quand mme, le président le plus ouvertement religieux de l'histoire américaine.

Et ce genre d'appel au vote en pleine église, l, ça n'a pas lieu seulement qu'en oklahoma. Ca a lieu un peu partout aux etats-unis. Parce que les républicains sont convaincus qu'il y a 4 millions d'électeurs chrétiens trs conservateurs qui n'ont pas voté en 2000. Et ça, dans une élection serrée, ça fait une différence.

>> Mais dites-moi une chose, vous tes arrivée aux etats-unis en 1994, il y a 10 ans. Est-ce que ds lors, vous avez constaté la place importante que tenait la religion dans les politiques ou est-ce que c'est plus marqué depuis que bush est au pouvoir?

>> Ecoutez, déj, moi, j'ai couvert bill clinton et déj, ses discours étaient ponctués de références dieu.

Et aussi, n'oubliez pas john kerry, le démocrate cette fois. Dans son dernier débat, il a fait référence dieu 10 fois pendant le débat. Et il a mme dit que la question de l'avortement était une question à régler entre une femme, dieu et son médecin.

Donc, on le voit, mme kerry, la catholique, essaie de convaincre une partie de cet électorat religieux de voter pour lui.

Bien sr, dans le cas de george bush, c'est fait avec beaucoup plus d'intensité. Il essaie d'imposer ses valeurs toute l'amérique, qu'on pense l'avortement, qu'on pense aussi à la question du mariage homosexuel.

sorry, i dont speak pussy.

I'd say a ban for this fvckwad is LONG overdue.

anyone that doesn't agree with you should be banned? You don't like to hear another point of view? Your party/ideology praises free speech. I should be banned for giving my opinions? All you guys do is push everyone away that has a different opinion than you. You wanna know why I'm so confrontational? Because I'm sick and tired of hearing you guys call every conservative an ignorant moron. All you guys do is repeat the same things...Bush is a liar, Bush is a dictator, Bush should go to Abu Ghraib, Bush is an ass, etc... Grow up, shesh. Has anything Bush done "wrong" actually affected you in any way, shape or form? Didn't think so.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Has anything Bush done "wrong" actually affected you in any way, shape or form? Didn't think so.

Everything Bush has done 'wrong' affects me to a much greater extent than everything he has done 'right'. I expect him to do the right thing all the time. I don't expect him to ever do the wrong thing! He is not charged with the responsibility to pick and choose what HE thinks is right.... it is codified for him and us.

 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
So basically, this thread was not started to exchange ideas and learn from one another, it's just another thread to mindlessly bash anyone who disagrees with you.

This thread is exactly why I'm not voting for Kerry. I hate you people more than I hate Bush.

I'll vote for a third party just to piss you fools off. Nader maybe.

You are not going to vote for Kerry because you hate some people on the internet? No one is real here. I recommend that you base your decision on the candidates' foreign and domestic policies.

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Don't much matter what you or I deem to be legal and right now does it.. It is what the law IS and what Bush swore to defend. He violated the law... the law of the US and International Law. I don't care if it was moral or amoral it was illegal and he is the one vested with the responsibilty to defend the law above all personal feelings to the contrary. Just as you and I are obliged to obey the law regardless of how we feel about it. Change the law but don't violate it. The law is all we have to protect what we believe in. We need folks in office that will not pick and choose which laws to obey and which to enforce..
I personally would prefer someone who does what is right over what's legal. Of course, your point is well taken, because I would only prefer that person if his sense of what is right happens to coincide with my own.

This raises the question: what law did he break, exactly? Our agreement to abide by the decisions of the UN in all military matters? If so, I am all for changing that law, as the UN proved itself, in this case, to be corrupt to the point where it could not be expected to render a valid judgment. Such a subjective law is obviously too fragile to bear weight, IMO.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Don't much matter what you or I deem to be legal and right now does it.. It is what the law IS and what Bush swore to defend. He violated the law... the law of the US and International Law. I don't care if it was moral or amoral it was illegal and he is the one vested with the responsibilty to defend the law above all personal feelings to the contrary. Just as you and I are obliged to obey the law regardless of how we feel about it. Change the law but don't violate it. The law is all we have to protect what we believe in. We need folks in office that will not pick and choose which laws to obey and which to enforce..
I personally would prefer someone who does what is right over what's legal. Of course, your point is well taken, because I would only prefer that person if his sense of what is right happens to coincide with my own.

This raises the question: what law did he break, exactly? Our agreement to abide by the decisions of the UN in all military matters? If so, I am all for changing that law, as the UN proved itself, in this case, to be corrupt to the point where it could not be expected to render a valid judgment. Such a subjective law is obviously too fragile to bear weight, IMO.

To the first point I'd proffer that the law can be changed and is changed daily. You should support folks who agree with your philosophy as do I. The only difference between my notion of right and yours (apparently) is that it is not right to violate the law no matter the issue.

To the second point... Mr Bush invaded Iraq. Iraq was a sovereign nation recognized as such by all the member nations of the UN. The UN treaty is part of the US law by virtue of it having been signed by the then President and 'blessed' by the Senate. And, it is International law by virtue of its Charter among nations. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for a nation to defend itself against an aggressor nation and to do so with out approval by the Security Counsel. A preemptive measure to thwart an immanent attack is recognized as within the Article 51 guidelines. However, there must be some justification. Mr Bush used the WMD/Delivery Systems capable of delivering them and the assertion that Iraq had plans to use them immanently. Mr Bush first tried to assert that Res 1441 (previous Resolutions are incorporated in 1441) gave authority to invade Iraq. When this failed to gain support he provided a Draft Resolution to enable the US to invade Iraq on a time schedule as per the draft to rid Iraq of the WMD/Delivery Systems and thereby eliminate the threat. This did not gain the needed support. So Mr Bush used Article 51 as the basis for the invasion. The illegality is that there is no evidence to support the assertion made by Mr Bush. It is easy to justify a defense against an attack but, a nation must show just cause to preemptively invade another nation to stave off an immanent attack. No WMD, No Delivery Systems, No evidence an immanent attack by Iraq upon the US or its possessions was to occur. Mr Bush has no evidence to support the actions he took. The burden of proof rests with Mr Bush not with Iraq. Mr. Bush cannot show a picture of a WMD and I'd have thought we'd not only have a portfolio of pictures for targeting purposes but also to show the UN Security Counsel after securing the invasion operations. So he violated the law by invading Iraq with out cause. His agenda was other than what he purported to invade for. This is obvious at least to all the folks who now argue the ends justify the means.

Most legal scholars agree that it is a violation of US law and international law to falsely invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter. Many agree that failing to show just cause for invoking Article 51 supports the notion that an indictment on the charges is appropriate. I argue for the plaintiff that Bush's actions were illegal. Only a jury or appropriate fact finding panel can determine this to be the case.
 

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Don't much matter what you or I deem to be legal and right now does it.. It is what the law IS and what Bush swore to defend. He violated the law... the law of the US and International Law. I don't care if it was moral or amoral it was illegal and he is the one vested with the responsibilty to defend the law above all personal feelings to the contrary. Just as you and I are obliged to obey the law regardless of how we feel about it. Change the law but don't violate it. The law is all we have to protect what we believe in. We need folks in office that will not pick and choose which laws to obey and which to enforce..
I personally would prefer someone who does what is right over what's legal. Of course, your point is well taken, because I would only prefer that person if his sense of what is right happens to coincide with my own.

This raises the question: what law did he break, exactly? Our agreement to abide by the decisions of the UN in all military matters? If so, I am all for changing that law, as the UN proved itself, in this case, to be corrupt to the point where it could not be expected to render a valid judgment. Such a subjective law is obviously too fragile to bear weight, IMO.

To the first point I'd proffer that the law can be changed and is changed daily. You should support folks who agree with your philosophy as do I. The only difference between my notion of right and yours (apparently) is that it is not right to violate the law no matter the issue.

To the second point... Mr Bush invaded Iraq. Iraq was a sovereign nation recognized as such by all the member nations of the UN. The UN treaty is part of the US law by virtue of it having been signed by the then President and 'blessed' by the Senate. And, it is International law by virtue of its Charter among nations. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for a nation to defend itself against an aggressor nation and to do so with out approval by the Security Counsel. A preemptive measure to thwart an immanent attack is recognized as within the Article 51 guidelines. However, there must be some justification. Mr Bush used the WMD/Delivery Systems capable of delivering them and the assertion that Iraq had plans to use them immanently. Mr Bush first tried to assert that Res 1441 (previous Resolutions are incorporated in 1441) gave authority to invade Iraq. When this failed to gain support he provided a Draft Resolution to enable the US to invade Iraq on a time schedule as per the draft to rid Iraq of the WMD/Delivery Systems and thereby eliminate the threat. This did not gain the needed support. So Mr Bush used Article 51 as the basis for the invasion. The illegality is that there is no evidence to support the assertion made by Mr Bush. It is easy to justify a defense against an attack but, a nation must show just cause to preemptively invade another nation to stave off an immanent attack. No WMD, No Delivery Systems, No evidence an immanent attack by Iraq upon the US or its possessions was to occur. Mr Bush has no evidence to support the actions he took. The burden of proof rests with Mr Bush not with Iraq. Mr. Bush cannot show a picture of a WMD and I'd have thought we'd not only have a portfolio of pictures for targeting purposes but also to show the UN Security Counsel after securing the invasion operations. So he violated the law by invading Iraq with out cause. His agenda was other than what he purported to invade for. This is obvious at least to all the folks who now argue the ends justify the means.

Most legal scholars agree that it is a violation of US law and international law to falsely invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter. Many agree that failing to show just cause for invoking Article 51 supports the notion that an indictment on the charges is appropriate. I argue for the plaintiff that Bush's actions were illegal. Only a jury or appropriate fact finding panel can determine this to be the case.

What US law was violated? I'm not trying to start an arguement, but if a US law existed, stating a president cannot violate UN law, I'm not aware of it.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
To the first point I'd proffer that the law can be changed and is changed daily. You should support folks who agree with your philosophy as do I. The only difference between my notion of right and yours (apparently) is that it is not right to violate the law no matter the issue.
So civil disobedience is wrong, regardlessness of the cause? MLK, Ghandi, and countless others purported that it is a citizen's DUTY to supplant the law when the law is wrong by using nonviolent methods. I'm inclined to agree with them.
To the second point... Mr Bush invaded Iraq. Iraq was a sovereign nation recognized as such by all the member nations of the UN. The UN treaty is part of the US law by virtue of it having been signed by the then President and 'blessed' by the Senate. And, it is International law by virtue of its Charter among nations. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for a nation to defend itself against an aggressor nation and to do so with out approval by the Security Counsel. A preemptive measure to thwart an immanent attack is recognized as within the Article 51 guidelines. However, there must be some justification. Mr Bush used the WMD/Delivery Systems capable of delivering them and the assertion that Iraq had plans to use them immanently. Mr Bush first tried to assert that Res 1441 (previous Resolutions are incorporated in 1441) gave authority to invade Iraq. When this failed to gain support he provided a Draft Resolution to enable the US to invade Iraq on a time schedule as per the draft to rid Iraq of the WMD/Delivery Systems and thereby eliminate the threat. This did not gain the needed support. So Mr Bush used Article 51 as the basis for the invasion. The illegality is that there is no evidence to support the assertion made by Mr Bush. It is easy to justify a defense against an attack but, a nation must show just cause to preemptively invade another nation to stave off an immanent attack. No WMD, No Delivery Systems, No evidence an immanent attack by Iraq upon the US or its possessions was to occur. Mr Bush has no evidence to support the actions he took. The burden of proof rests with Mr Bush not with Iraq. Mr. Bush cannot show a picture of a WMD and I'd have thought we'd not only have a portfolio of pictures for targeting purposes but also to show the UN Security Counsel after securing the invasion operations. So he violated the law by invading Iraq with out cause. His agenda was other than what he purported to invade for. This is obvious at least to all the folks who now argue the ends justify the means.

Most legal scholars agree that it is a violation of US law and international law to falsely invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter. Many agree that failing to show just cause for invoking Article 51 supports the notion that an indictment on the charges is appropriate. I argue for the plaintiff that Bush's actions were illegal. Only a jury or appropriate fact finding panel can determine this to be the case.
But Res 1441 was pursuant on many other resolutions, trailing back to the cease-fire resolution from the first Gulf War. This resolution called for the use of force if Saddam did not come into complete compliance with the articles of the resolution. So, really, we should have invaded Iraq in approximately 1992 if the UN is to be considered credible. I'm not going to argue the details, but instead that the UN has been demonstrated to be engaged in a conflict of interests which was also illegal and likely the reason for the imminent veto of any attempt by the US to act in accord with Article 51.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
What US law was violated? I'm not trying to start an arguement, but if a US law existed, stating a president cannot violate UN law, I'm not aware of it

Well.. I don't think a law exists as you stated it. But the UN Charter exists and it is a signed Treaty and was 'blessed' by the Senate. To me and many others that means the President is charged with operating within its provisions.
 

Originally posted by: LunarRay
What US law was violated? I'm not trying to start an arguement, but if a US law existed, stating a president cannot violate UN law, I'm not aware of it

Well.. I don't think a law exists as you stated it. But the UN Charter exists and it is a signed Treaty and was 'blessed' by the Senate. To me and many others that means the President is charged with operating within its provisions.

I see what you are saying. Although I believe that treaty's are simply agreements made by those who it would benfit. There is almost no obligation to follow treaties simply because there is no law enforcement behind said treaties. I don't condone Bush's actions, but that is a simple belief I hold.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Originally posted by: LunarRay
What US law was violated? I'm not trying to start an arguement, but if a US law existed, stating a president cannot violate UN law, I'm not aware of it

Well.. I don't think a law exists as you stated it. But the UN Charter exists and it is a signed Treaty and was 'blessed' by the Senate. To me and many others that means the President is charged with operating within its provisions.

I see what you are saying. Although I believe that treaty's are simply agreements made by those who it would benfit. There is almost no obligation to follow treaties simply because there is no law enforcement behind said treaties. I don't condone Bush's actions, but that is a simple belief I hold.



This might be informative to the subject of treaties. It is PDF and I can't copy and paste the relevant section but it is on the first and second page.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Along with the illegality of invading a sovereign nation when no attack is imminent and indeed impossible due to that nation's lack weapons and delivery systems that could be considered a threat, the U.S.A. has committed illegal acts after invading and occupying Iraq.

Abu Ghraib, as an example. Whether the actions of a few soldiers, who are paying the price for following orders while their commanders are left off scot free, or the bombing of civilian targets while refusing to allow civilians to leave battle zones, the illegal, immoral activities of the U.S. are going on right now, today, in Iraq.

Our 'free press' isn't telling the story of what is happening in Iraq. They are merely reporting the party line.

We have invaded a nation without cause and we have been systematically murdering its civilians since the day the invasion began.

And all for what? To prevent Iraq from attacking us? To depose a dictator? To liberate Iraqis? To spread freedom and democracy?

The people who are making up excuses as they go for the horrors we have visited on Iraq know in their hearts what the true nature of the U.S. invasion is. If they don't they are only fooling themselves. But they aren't fooling anyone else and certainly not the people of Iraq.

Falluja in their sights

As the British government prepares to send its soldiers north to free up the US army to attack Falluja, it is necessary to focus on what this coming onslaught will mean for the city and its people. Falluja is already now being bombed daily, as it is softened up for the long-awaited siege. It has been a gruelling year for its people. First, they were occupied by the US army's 82nd Airborne, an incompetent group of louts whose idea of cultural sensitivity was kicking a door down instead of blowing it up. Within eight months of the invasion, the 82nd had killed about 100 civilians in the area and lost control of Falluja, leaving it to the US marines to try and retake the city last April. After killing about 600 civilians, the marines retreated, leaving the city in the hands of 18 armed groups, including tribesmen, Islamists, Ba'athists, former criminals and an assortment of non-Iraqi Arab fighters said to be led by the Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Fallujans have now been offered a choice: hand over the outsiders they dislike (mostly Arabs) who are protecting them from the outsiders they really hate (the Americans), or get blown apart by the world's most lethal killing machine, the US marines. Zarqawi's influence on the resistance has been wildly exaggerated - indeed, many people in Falluja don't even believe he exists, and most find the non-Iraqi Arabs' brand of Salafi fundamentalism at odds with their local Sufi traditions. Today, many Fallujans are tired even of their own mujahideen, but trust the US army even less, and with good reason. Recently, a Bush administration official told the New York Times the bombing was driving a wedge between the citizenry and the non-Iraqi fighters. If, indeed, the civilian population is being bombed for this end, this is a grave war crime.

We have a blueprint for what will happen in the city during the coming attack: Falluja, part one. Like all sequels the next time will be bloodier. Last April I found myself inching across a bridge into Falluja holding an old white T-shirt: in front of me, marines blocking the bridge, screaming at me to go back; behind me, a large group of Iraqis yelling at me to go forward so that they could follow me through the roadblock and rescue their families. After a while, the marines opened the bridge allowing hundreds of women and children to stream out, but stopped the boys older than 16 and men younger than 60 from leaving the city. Preventing civilians from leaving a battle is against the Geneva conventions - although battle doesn't capture what a meat grinder the city had become in that first week of the assault, when the majority of civilian casualties were killed, blown apart by precision, and often inaccurate, airstrikes.

The dead were buried in gardens or in mass graves in the city's soccer field. For three weeks 5,000 marines surrounded the city of 340,000 - think an assault on Cardiff. The marines created a moving front line of humvees and tanks, cutting Falluja off. In the air, helicopters and fighter planes bombed a city without air defences, while unmanned drones circled continuously, looking for targets.

 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
People who intend to vote for Bush, could you please explain to me how you can still support GWB after it has come out that every justification he and his people used were false, flawed, and or wrong?

I just do not understand why you do not hold him accountable for this disastrous foreign policy mistake.

It is not my intention start a Bush or a liberal vs conservative bashing thread. There are plenty of other threads for that.


Thank you

Randolph

The answers I have gotten to my question:

GWB's Iraqi war has not negatively affected the support for him because

1. Invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

2. The Iraqi war is not the most important issue in this election.

3. Hatred for John Kerry

4. Hatred for some forum members

Did I miss any other answers?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
People who intend to vote for Bush, could you please explain to me how you can still support GWB after it has come out that every justification he and his people used were false, flawed, and or wrong?

I just do not understand why you do not hold him accountable for this disastrous foreign policy mistake.

It is not my intention start a Bush or a liberal vs conservative bashing thread. There are plenty of other threads for that.


Thank you

Randolph

The answers I have gotten to my question:

GWB's Iraqi war has not negatively affected the support for him because

1. Invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

2. The Iraqi war is not the most important issue in this election.

3. Hatred for John Kerry

4. Hatred for some forum members

Did I miss any other answers?

Looks like you understand the Neocon Nation quite well, now get out there a vote for Bush.