Thou shalt not kill. I realize that this is an academic question of who did the first killing, and who is going to be the last killer. Who is morally responsible in the final judgement? Sad that human life has gotten to be so cheap.
i don't see how it's a question of that at all... oh, and there isn't gonna be any 'final judgement' either..
Nice words Cathy but you haven't answered my question. Surely an important subject like this shouldn't just be dismissed. Regards, freealways
I knew it had to be Candletrader - though the depraved expressions of glee over prospective harm to "the USA" - which has to mean its people as well as its soldiers and politicians - may set new low standards even for him. The post is easily among the most loathsome posts I've ever read. Though the sworn enemies of the United States might find such sentiments agreeable, I expect that even most members of that group would find the infantile manner of expression to be beneath them. Perhaps you also now understand why some of us prefer to ignore Candletrader, or why I, for one, refuse to have anything to do with any of the threads that he has started, and that he inevitably turns into a platform. In my opinion, he's an embarrassment to himself, his allies, and this entire site.
I am amazed that we have not identified the common threads amongst the main bunch of government detractors. The French, German, and Russian governments have all had the distinction of being on the losing side of a major battle of some sort with the US. Be it actual, economic, or otherwise, they all understand the losing side of the transaction. And they're still, PISSED! I look forward to the upcoming vote on the resolution. Afterwards I would hope that Powell's statement would be along this line: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gentlemen and Gentlewomen, the votes have been cast and we now must all govern ourselves accordingly. The US position in this matter is clear, as is our resolve, and fortunately so too our duty. Sometimes being a leader involves gathering the whole team together, spelling out the goal and leading the universal charge. Every now and again, only a majority will conceded and brace for the challenge. And understanding that the day will be long and task just a little harder, a leader must still put forth the same undaunted effort to achieve the final victory. But make no mistake, victory is still within the sight, it will be achieved. There are those who are uncomfortable with some of the possible paths that might now be taken in this endeavor to correct the stance within the Iraqi government. Be clear, the problem that we have is not with the Iraqi peoples. We ask that you notice throughout the coming months the American efforts in our actions to always relieve the suffrage they have been placed into. Saddam has ordered American uniforms. This is not deniable. But what he can not order is the American solider to place within them. Should you hear of unspeakable atrocities as this action now commences, take a moment and think aloud. Remember, this is the same military that you too have stood with shoulder-to-shoulder in many past battles. These are the men and women who also have compassion, honor, and resolve to complete the dangerous mission that they have been assigned with a dignity that can only come from a caring and understanding human. We will tolerate, NO atrocities! Should military actions be undertaken, we resolve to produce the things that the inspectors have not been able to. We will not only produce them, but we will come back before you to present those findings and the horrible truth that they evidence. For there is a liar amongst us. A fact that we have all been hesitant to speak of. Saddam has stood and battled for 12+ years. Under the rules of the cease fire, we have been destroying radar installations in the no fly zone since the beginning. Now we have even been destroying these same types of radar stations in the southern region of Iraq. These radar stations are not Iraqi built. Someone here knows that, and they know that this IS a violation. And they need to tell us all, WHY? We have heard that the Iraqi government has no weapons of mass destruction. Then we America, will be acting on the good faith and understanding that you have given us. Our French, German and Russian friends have assured America that there are "No Weapons of Mass Destruction." Based upon that factor alone, we will make sure that our men and women in the military have the peace of mind and understanding that the word of our friends can be relied upon with the utmost confidence. There are no weapons of mass destruction that they need fear being used against them in this conflict. Know that they will take comfort in that they have the honorable word of the French, Germans and Russians on this point. We also resolve to disclose all the information of those instances where rouge elements have provided illegal parts, supplies and materials that have been banned by the security council all these many years. We will not only disclose the materials, but also where they may have originated from. We do so to make sure that this honorable body can then identify the violators and take the necessary action to punish them for their crimes against us all. Lastly, we do this in the name of peace. We do not seek war. We seek compliance to the rules that have been issued within this UN framework on so many occasions in the past. Saddam does not understand that the UN has spoken with the voice of America for 12+ years. For 12+ years he has decided that the UN can not speak for America. Why do I say this? Because if he understood that America meant what it said, he would have disarmed. Saddam knows that the UN can not mobilize the American forces. He understands that you can only request that we help you to enforce your wishes. He knows that you are a compassionate organization that is hesitant at every turn to taking ANY, harsh action that might cost the lives of even one innocent person. He understands your fear of war and the consequences that it has on the world. He knows that you are paralyzed in the discussion of compassion and the need to give every last chance - plus one more, to resolve this issue peacefully. He knows you, understand the consequences of using American military power. He knows that you have trouble and fear within your hearts to do this, and he laughs. He watched as 9/11 came and he saw your outcry to America expressing compassion and sorrow. And he knows your weaknesses. He has studied your actions over the many years since the Gulf war and he knows your tolerance. But what Saddam does not know, is the true American resolve. Thank You! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But that is only a wish!
the New York Times changed its mind: Saying No to War Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition. We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing. If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09SUN1.html
It would be easier simply to address Carter's arguments if they came from anyone other than an ex-President. That he would publish such a piece in the midst of war and on the even of battle is reprehensible. Even if his arguments were more coherent or useful, his open attack on one of his successors is a violation of the same spirit of bipartisanship that he begins his piece by invoking. A few excerpts help to demonstrate why he is widely considered to have been among the worst American Presidents of the last century, and why he's now joining Rigoberta Manchu, Yasser Arafat, and Le Duc Tho in permanently devaluing the Nobel Peace Prize. This statement - which amounts to his thesis statement - is of course entirely inaccurate: Needless to say, there is substantial international opposition to the Bush policy, but there is also significant "international support," most notably from Britain, Spain, Australia, Eastern Europe, and many of Iraq's neighbors. This is a muddy sentiment that Carter invokes as an absolute truth. Until and unless Gandhian pacifism becomes national policy, "all nonviolent options" is a meaningless generalization. Does Carter believe that teach-ins and nude protests would work against Saddam Hussein and his allies? Again, Carter states his opinion as a fact, then, after more of the same, makes another meaningless generalization: What history is Carter referring to when he makes this bizarre statement? What is he talking about? Whether you're in favor of or opposed to militarily enforcing the terms of the ceasefire agreement and subsequent UN resolutions that followed Hussein's defeat in Kuwait, from an historical point of view there is nothing very unusual about a government seeking to pursue perceived national interests through warfare. Here Carter shows his hand, adopting as his own the prejudicial language of a war protestor, rather than showing the judgment and temperance of an elder statesman. His statement implies that the US objective will be to inflict maximum casualties among Iraqi civilians, rather than to destroy and disable the security forces that for thirty years have made the lives of those civilians a totalitarian Hell. Throughout the rest of the piece, Carter demonstrates the same weak-mindedness, self-righteousness, and self-serving bias. One can hope that a victory in Iraq will permanently marginalize voices like Carter's, and force the internationalist left to come up with new, more intellectually honest spokespeople. By the same token, one of the greatest risks of the Bush policy is that failure will put the fate of this country, and of the world, in the hands of individuals like him.
HAHAHA! You silly LOSER!!! ROFL, yeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhaaaaaaa!!! By continuing to believe that the "morality" of US foreign policy is superior to the rest of the world, people like you continue to delude themselves... even a basic understanding of contemporary history will reveal that it is the USA which is the biggest threat to world peace and global harmony.... The civilized world looks forward to the day when the USA is punished for its crimes against humanity and for its blood-drenched murderous hegemonistic foreign policies... the civilized world anticipates that the USA is in for a rude awakening sooner than it expects... and when the USA comes crying to the civilized world for sympathy, the civilized world will promptly tell the USA to f**k off!!! HAHAHA... The civilized world is most perturbed and angered by the unilateralism of the USA in the forthcoming war against Iraq.... but the civilized world fully recognises that the USA will of course inevitability be SEVERELY punished for such criminality.... the punishment will take the form of 1) the solidifying of the hatred for the USA created amongst the people of the civilized world... this is significant and highly sad... I have always believed in peace and love between the USA and the people of the civilized world, that now looks highly unlikely 2) the actions of the evil mf'ing Islamic scumbag terrorists taking their revenge on the people who backed the US scumbag policymaking terrorists... terrorists killing the backers of terrorists, no biggie.. LOL!! ... so the pain in the case of Iraq will ultimately be shared between the people of Iraq and the people of the USA... thats an unfortunate inevitability.... ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFL, yeeeeeeehhhhhhhaaaaaa!!
Taking poetic license on the quote, "killing is too good for him" may I suggest "ignoring is too good for him."
HAHAHA! I am being attacked by the usual war-mongering idiots!! First go get your UN resolution if you wanna attack me, you silly man!!! Kinda funny, if I say so myself!! ROFL, yeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhaaaaaaa!!!