|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total) |
| |
Michaeladams | |
Total: 918,912 Year: 6,169/9,624 Month: 17/240 Week: 32/34 Day: 4/6 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 2004 Presidential Election | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I thought the vote was 5 to 4 ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
...but don't take it as a precedent for future elections!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: |
Oh dear: BBC NEWS | Americas | Early problems hit Florida voting doesn't look like you're off to a good start?
How does your whole election thing work anyway? I thought the election wasn't until November? How come folks are voting now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6663 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Yeah, next time they will pay of more judges to make it at least 6-3
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
jesus christ with the stupid anti-french bullshit. give it up. they aren't unfriendly, they have to protect their own interests. they have no requirement that tells them that they have to agree with us. do you know what percentage of the french population is muslim? 7%. now that may not seem like a lot, but imagine what would happen if all 4 million odd of these people got the idea that their government was attacking their people because of their religion? they're already having trouble because the french school system banned the wearing of headcoverings by muslim women...
get a clue. the us isn't the only country and we are by no means the best or the right country. have you looked up the meaning of the term "sovereign nation"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 4100 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
My biggest beef with fellow Christians who support Bush is that on one hand they priase him for his supposed "culture of life" stance and his supposed Christian values while on the other hand applaud him for performing one of the most violent and immoral acts in the history of our country. I recently wrote this to a group of friends who support Bush:
This administration failed to interpret the evidence properly or even give it enough time to be properly processed before putting our soldiers in front of Iraqi bullets. A pre-emptive strike is NEVER, I repeat for emphasis, NEVER an ethical option for self defense no matter what the circumstances or what century you live in. It is never right to be proactive in war! It is FATAL to use the logic of pre-emptive force in concerns this important! There is a not insignificant chance that sometime in the infinite future that China might attack us. Are we then justified in using force now to prevent that hypothesized attack? Don't you see how bad that logic is? You can stretch it very far and history tells us time and time again about how pre-emptive war is a terrible thing. By the logic based on pre-emptive force we should take over the world so that all future attacks on our country would be avoided. I am calling you out on this one . When is it right to be proactive in killing especially as a Christian? Please tell me! What I see is a president quoting scripture and then declaring entire nations as "Evil". What I would expect from a president coming from a Christian perspective is to reach out to nations that are lost. Should we be soft? No, we should be prepared to DEFEND ourselves at any cost. That does NOT give us the right to pre-emptivly attack a nation because we consider them a future threat. Even if Iraq had WMDs we would not have been justified in attacking them based on 200 years of military code of ethics concerning use of force. Bush threw out this established tradition that has been the basis of all our military action even when it has been for sketchy reasons. If you knew that your neighbor was unstable and that there was a chance that he might come over and punch you in the face are you justified in burning his house down? What if he beat his wife and children would you be justified then? When would you be justified in attacking your neighbor except in self-defense as a Christian and especially as a leader? Please, I really want an answer to that question..... Three weeks later, still no answer. What do you all think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
A pre-emptive strike is NEVER, I repeat for emphasis, NEVER an ethical option for self defense no matter what the circumstances or what century you live in. Nonsense. But the standard must be one of clear and imminent danger and that there is no other viable option. If, for example, you had a valid reason to expect that another nation state was about to attack the US, if the time line was so short that other options were precluded, then pre-emptive attack is one reasonable answer. There is another option which is applicable to Nation States which is massive and sure retaliation, as we practiced in MAD. Even then, the US never renounced the option of pre-emptive strikes. But is that any more moral? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 289 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Call me naive, misinformed, or even evil but I wish the US expressed a bit more enthusiasm towards the idea of international law.
I'm not saying I understand all the details of these issues, or that a sovereign nation doesn't have the right to protect its own interests; but I do think that the underlying attitude expressed by the rejection of the landmine treaty, the biological weapons treaty, the Kyoto treaty, the treaty of the child -- and hey, why not the international criminal court as well? -- is isolationist and short-sighted. This fear that others (particularly the French, for some reason) are going to tell Americans what to do seems to be one of Bush's main jabbing sticks for Kerry at the moment. Like anyone's going to tell America what to do and get listened to!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GoodIntentions  Inactive Member |
Call me naive, misinformed, or even evil but I wish the US expressed a bit more enthusiasm towards the idea of international law.
Ah, but right now any mention of such enthusiasm would make you unpatriotic, according to the Bush supporters. This message has been edited by GoodIntentions, 10-19-2004 11:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 289 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Right. Americans are very patriotic. I honestly have trouble understanding what patriotism is. Surely its the prinicples that you should uphold with enthusiasm, not the flag, seal, or any of the other host of symbols?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 4100 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
But the standard must be one of clear and imminent danger and that there is no other viable option. If, for example, you had a valid reason to expect that another nation state was about to attack the US, if the time line was so short that other options were precluded, then pre-emptive attack is one reasonable answer. Let me try to clarify. I am not saying that you have to wait for the missile to strike or the troops to hit the beach before you take action. An analogy would be this. If a person is reaching for his gun you can reasonably believe that you are going to get shot and you have every right to take action. You are not justified in taking action just because someone is in possession of a gun. You are even less justified in taking action if you THINK the person is in possession of a gun. The intent of the person by their drawing of the gun is starting the fight in and of itself before a bullet is fired. War is not necessarily started by who fires first.
There is another option which is applicable to Nation States which is massive and sure retaliation, as we practiced in MAD. Even then, the US never renounced the option of pre-emptive strikes. But is that any more moral? The Cold War was the effect of two people both with guns drawn and pointed at each other both with the knowledge that if they should pull the trigger that the other would probably have enough time to also pull the trigger. MAD is a stalemate of two parties willing to pull the trigger only if the other pulls the trigger first or it can be assured that they are in the act of pulling the trigger. If the same logic of pre-emptive strike had been used in the Cold War that was used in Iraq we probably would not be having this discussion right now. So my definition of a pre-emptive attack is an attack where no actual or assured attack has or will take place that categorize the pre-emptive strike as a defensive action. In THIS case, I believe it is NEVER justified and certainly not the quality decision of a leader who has been given the characteristic of promting Christian values. Does this help? Given this, are we justified in going into Iraq? Can Bush still claim to be a good Christian leader? I hope the answers are Yes, No, No respectivly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
don't confuse jingoism with partriotism: one is a vapid compared to the other, and much closer to the actual behavior.
look it up:Jingoism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com jingoism n. Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism. jingoism n 1: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions [syn: flag waving]2: fanatical patriotism word of the day? enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
if it does happen again it raises the question of conflict of interest, even more than before: almost certainly the next president will select at least one Supreme Court judge ...
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3959 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: |
The seems to be the current presidental topic, so I'm posting this here.
For some odd reason, the page wants to keep reloading. Page Not FoundScientists vow to vote out Bush Still, despite press coverage of vocal opponents, there are Bush supporters among scientists | By Eugene Russo quote: And more. There is another link relating to the Sinclair Broadcast Group. I will post it at the more relivent topic. Moose This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-20-2004 10:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JOEBIALEK  Inactive Member |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024