Why is it our business what's going on over there? Do you honestly think Saddam is the worst abuser of human rights in the world today? Where were we in any of the other countless human rights crisis that occurred in the world in less oil-rich environments (read: chechnya, slovakia, somalia)?
It's not my job to worry about how cruel that guy is, and the fact that other people want to make me think this way gets me really ticked off. Now, if you are on some kind of justice kick, remember that justice has to be universal, i.e. it judges an action based on its inherit moral worth and has no regard for circumstance. If you can honestly say there is something worse about this monster than all the other monsters we have put up with / ignored / tolerated / given weapons to to kill their own people, than I will buy some of what you are saying. But otherwise, the argument that anyone SHOULD be outraged over what he does is not worth making. It is offensive to the millions of other people killed over the 20th century by people who were far worse. M -----Original Message----- From: samcfug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:36 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Liberate Iraq -- Even With Unclean Hands Actually the expression as reported is "Congress gives overwhelming support" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/02/politics/main547431.shtml Perhaps some view my opinion about anti-war protesters as extreme, but with the public propensity to paint with a broad brush, I will try to clarify. Speaking out against a government policy, I think the constitutional language is closer to "peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress." is indeed a RIGHT bestowed upon the citizens of the United States. So-called "Civil Disobedience" and the violence, trashing of property, both private and public, looting, and all else that has gone on during these protest gatherings is NOT a protected right. Nowhere does the constitution contain the words "Freedom of Expression." The only legal way to remove a government is via the ballot box (or in the most recent case, the Supreme Court.) Any other method is treasonable by definition of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. My own view of the authorization provisions in the War Powers Act, is not only granting that power to the President, but serves as the will of congress. That amounts to a declaration of war. Nowhere in the quoted Article, does it define the wording or the form of communication for a Declaration. Everyone knows that Congress is expert at subtlety delegating its powers so as to hide them from the ire of their constituents. On today's news is the revelation that France, Germany and Russia are serving as advisors to the Saddam government as to how to defend themselves against the Americans and British. Still, where is the war protester's condemnation of the thousands of innocent civilians slaughtered, tortured and dismembered, by the Saddam regime? By this omission and the very nature of the Marxist leanings of the protesters is why I feel they are traitors, cowards, and even seditionists. I still stand by that opinion, no matter how extreme anyone describes it. [ To the Muslim, dismemberment prevents their admission to Paradise ] I rest my case. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
