The War On Iraq has started.

[kyleb]

I will continue to take offense as long as you insist on telling me that I have no respect or value for the dead in the initial conflict.

i never said "no"

That is personally insulting.

i cannot help that others might be insulted by misconception.

If you truly RESPECT my beliefs like you claim to, then you wouldn't say such things.

didn't say "no" but i did say how i feel, and in my opinion saying what you feel does nothing to be disrespectful.

You would understand that I have as much respect and reverence for life as you do. Our beliefs differ on the best way to preserve it.

yes, i do not agree that instigateing violence is a way to presrve life.

 

[Silent_One]

I was trying to be general. Thanks for the smackdown.

No offence, hope I didn't come across to strong.

 

[kyleb]

i think you were more than harsh, the document says that our rights are granted by god:

separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

..all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

even if the document didn't say it, i would still belive it were true, but i do not get where you come up with what you have shown to belive on those comments and last two parts you boldfaced are about the relationship between government and people, not man and god. at least that is how i see it, were you simply confused or am i misunderstanding you?

 

[Snyder]

Goragoth, your right that language does get mangled over time. I hate reasoning where they state "but we live in a democracy". No we dont, we have representitives that look out for our best interests. This is not a democracy.

I know, just nitpicking, but it IS a democracy. To be precise: A republic is a so-called representative democracy, which is the form of government in (I guess) 99% of all democratic countries over the world. The only country I can think of which has some sort of a direct ("participative") democracy (at least to a certain extent) is Switzerland.

 

[Silent_One]

....simply confused or am i misunderstanding you?

Misunderstanding. Laws of Nature and deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed are traditional sources of "rights" To dirive just powers from the consent of the people allows the governing body to establish laws spelling out your "rights".

 

[kyleb]

like i said before, i belive you are confusing the rights of man with the rights of government:

Governments are instituted[/b] among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

government derives power from man, man is endowed with power from god.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i never said "no"...i cannot help that others might be insulted by misconception.

Clearly implied: "but the war was stoped, and i wish you might learn to respect the value of that and the lives of those who died to being upon that end."

You did not say "learn to have more respect". You said "learn to respect". In other words, I have not learned to respect.

It doesn't matter if you meant "no" repsect or "some" respect or whatever. I am insulted if you belief I don't have the UTMOST respect for fallen individuals in ANY conflict.

and in my opinion saying what you feel does nothing to be disrespectful.

Wrong. You didn't tell me how you felt. You presumed to tell me how I feel. Big difference there.

yes, i do not agree that instigateing violence is a way to presrve life.

I don't think letting terrorists have access to weapons of mass destruction is a way to preserve life. By all means, provide us with a solution for that problem without "violence."

 

[Silent_One]

"....separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...."
Here the Declaration talks of two sources.

government derives power from man, man is endowed with power from god.

Government dirives power from man. Correct. In addition man is endowed with power from God. Again correct. Both are mentioned in the Declaration. The power of goverment to establish laws and "rights" comes from the people.

Edit: What are the "rights" of man. The Declaration does not say what they are, only that they come from God, Nature, and Government (laws).

 

[RussSchultz]

What are the "rights" of man

In my opinion, the only rights we have are those that are protected in one way or another.

Nature and God have done a poor job of directly protecting rights, so my vote is on government, which means we're in deep trouble!

 

[Himself]

What are the "rights" of man

In my opinion, the only rights we have are those that are protected in one way or another.

Nature and God have done a poor job of directly protecting rights, so my vote is on government, which means we're in deep trouble!

Exactly, they only rights you have are the ones granted to you by the agreement of your peers in your society, or rather the rights given to you by your peers several generations ago which may not longer really fit the times you are in. Rights are more about having a peace treaty with your fellow apes than high sounding words on a piece of paper. A concensus of what makes you feel the most secure isn't something inherent or mystical.

I don't think a cow is given less right to live by nature or any god than I am, but society allows them to be warehoused and killed so that I may eat a good source of protein. It's pretty obvious that any rights you have in nature are determined by might, not some abstract sense of right.

If they are any gods around, they are not doing tech support anymore, so they are a non issue.

 

[kyleb]

i never said "no"...i cannot help that others might be insulted by misconception.

Clearly implied: "but the war was stoped, and i wish you might learn to respect the value of that and the lives of those who died to being upon that end."

You did not say "learn to have more respect". You said "learn to respect". In other words, I have not learned to respect.

It doesn't matter if you meant "no" repsect or "some" respect or whatever. I am insulted if you belief I don't have the UTMOST respect for fallen individuals in ANY conflict..

and i corrected myself:

i didn't mean to upset you on that, i should have been more clear. i wish that you might respect the value of the lives that died as i do; enough not to support the start of yet another war. again, i understand that you are disappointed that the treaty has not been fulfilled to your satisfaction; but i am disappointed that you feel compelled to justify war based on your displeasure. don't take that personal though, i hold everyone one including myself to those same standards; and i also understand that none of us will ever fully live up to such ideals, but i still belive in them just the same.

hence your consept of "utmost respect" fails to meet the standers i hold, again it is a matter of opinion and i am simply expressing the freedom to state my own.

and in my opinion saying what you feel does nothing to be disrespectful.

Wrong. You didn't tell me how you felt. You presumed to tell me how I feel. Big difference there.

i told you only what i understand of how you feel, hence it was very much my opinion.

I don't think letting terrorists have access to weapons of mass destruction is a way to preserve life.

and i have not been arguing for such things, but i will continue to argue against the methods being used in this situation as long as i see reason to do so.

By all means, provide us with a solution for that problem without "violence."

it is the instagation of violence is what i am argueing against, i understand that you do not see us as the instagers. but if you might be so kind as to overlook that disagreement and understand that others hold an opinion differnt than your own, you would be able see that many alterntive solutions are avalable. granted, none of them are perfect; but if you are holding your breath for perfection i must warn you that many have already died doing just that.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

and i have not been arguing for such things, only arguing against the methods being used in this situation.

Perhaps you didn't get the point. I KNOW you didn't argue such things. Presumably YOU KNOW that I don't argue such things as we should go in with force without any legitimate cause of self-defense.

And yet, you continue to make statements to the contrary.

See how annoying that is?

By all means, provide us with a solution for that problem without "violence."

it is the instagation of violence is what i am argueing against, i understand that you do not see us as the instagers. but if you might be so kind as to overlook that disagreement and understand that others hold an opinion differnt than your own, you would be able see that many alterntive solutions are avalable. granted, none of them are perfect; but if you are holding your breath for perfection i must warn you that many have already died doing just that.

Um, Kyle, I'm not looking for a cop out. I asked you a direct question. No, I DON'T SEE any alternatives available that have not already been tried and failed. I can assure of that, otherwise I would not hold the position that I do. Your task is to convince me that there are alternatives that I had not thought of. And ones that minimize current and future suffering of Iraqi people and risk to the U.S./Allies.

I believe we've been through this before, and your response was along the lines of "I can't convince you, so I won't try."

Please refrain from not even trying.

I am not holding my breath for perfection. I am simply asking you to stop identifying what you see as problems with my solution, and start providing actual alternative solutions of your own.

 

[kyleb]

Perhaps you didn't get the point. I KNOW you didn't argue such things. Presumably YOU KNOW that I don't argue such things as we should go in with force without any legitimate cause of self-defense.

And yet, you continue to make statements to the contrary.

but i do not argue that you we should go in with force without any legitimate cause of self-defense. i argue that your concept of self-defence does not agree with my own.

See how annoying that is?

see that i am only speaking my mind; it is your choice to work to understand my viewpoint, or discount it without understanding and allow your self the possibility of becoming annoyed?

I asked you a direct question. No, I DON'T SEE any alternatives available that have not already been tried and failed.

but we all fail at things, that does not mean the methods are wrong, only that the execution was flawed. one of the most beautiful conditions of our mortality is the fact that we can always improve on what we have done. we had let our defense down far below the standard that had been set forth by us, though our government; and we paid a tragic price for that. i see this as a lesson to strive to better our own defenses against such tragity and not one bring those things upon others.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

but we all fail at things, that does not mean the methods are wrong, only that the execution was flawed. one of the most beautiful conditions of our mortality is the fact that we can always improve....blah...blah...

I'll try again.

What, specifically, is YOUR SOLUTION to the problem.

 

[jb]

I heard on CNN that they are expecting over 1000 air planes to be used in the opening assult Ouchie for Iraq.

 

[kyleb]

I'll try again.

What, specifically, is YOUR SOLUTION to the problem.

if you would be so kind as to state specifically "the problem" which you would like me to address, i would be happy to reiterate my opinions yet again in the hopes that you might find value in them.

 

[duncan36]

Mostly B-52's carpet bombing, 90% of the bombs dropped in the first Gulf-War were from random carpet bombing.

This is a very sad day for the United States, may God have mercy on the souls of those soldiers who are being pressed into murder and destruction.

 

[Heathen]

If you're worried about their souls get a Catholic priest to perform a general absolution.

The soldiers are going in to do a job just because their overal aim is death and destruction (I'll refrain from using the somewhat emotionally laden 'murder') that DOES NOT mean that's what they are aiming for. These guys are professionals, to treat them with anything less than respect (they are doing a job a lot of us would balk at) is an insult. As part of my job I deal with a lot of soldiers, yes they know what they are going to be asked to do and none of them are looking forward to it, but they joined up because they feel a certain amount of obligation they are NOT murderers they are soldiers.

PS: It's not just the US out there you know.
PPS: You wanna check that stat of yours?

 

[duncan36]

War is despicable and I feel empathy for those who will inevitably be forced to kill and through mistakes will inevitably murder, this is real life not some war movie here wake yourself up.

 

[John Reynolds]

War is despicable and I feel empathy for those who will inevitably be forced to kill and through mistakes will inevitably murder, this is real life not some war movie here wake yourself up.

Speaking of real life, war is a reality of the world we live in. Waking up to reality means that inaction almost guarantees more American planes and skyscrapers will be saying "Hello!" to each other in the near future.

It's real easy to write that war is despicable. It's a nice sentiment. What I never hear from such detractors is a viable alternative plan for dealing with terrorists who'd love to sneak a nuclear bomb into New York's harbor and detonate it, killing millions of civilians.