Question For Republicans

[quasi-modo]

So you think it's our responsibility to invade other countries?  Interesting viewpoint.

I think it is our responsibility to make the world a safer place because the un is only good at writing nasty letters. If we have to take out a regime that sponsors terrorism then so be it. We should try ot solve it with diplomacy wherever possible, like libya for instance, of course, but that was not going to happen in afganistan or iraq.

[quasi-modo]

Its up to us because, unlike some who are totally concerned with self-preservation and are selfish bastards, we have the ability to do so. Its a moral obligation at the very least to help the oppressed.

Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?

Israel is not oppressing the palestinians. Israel is not retaliating for terrorist attacks for pleasure either.

[quasi-modo]

I don't think anybody is completely opposed to helping the enviroment, that's why Bush passed legislation helping the air and skies.

Foreign invasion/involvement is more or less a responsibility of the US. It's not like the United   (Like Saddam)

Apparantly after 9-11 there was a lot of legislation passed that was harming the environment that the media never got a hold of people because they were all preoccupied with 9-11.  Also, I read in an article stating that the earth has about another 100 years remaining before it "dies" due to pollution, expansion, extinction, etc.  And with the republican majorities in congress and the new supreme court judge appointments, it'll be largely up to the republicans in theory to fix this.  I'm sure that'll go well. 

Personally I am for a pollution tax. Tax the company for x ammount of pollution to correct the negative externality. It creates an incentive to run cleaner but will not hurt the companies ability to exist like a magical ammount of smog you are allowed to create before the EPA busts in with machine guns blazing.

[quasi-modo]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment; but if the the majority of the supreme court is conservative (which it will definitely be once Bush is through appointing), all issues that arise will lean towards a conservative point of view rather than a liberal, and that's not good if your opinions are opposed to conservative ideas.

No. I only know of one judge who is leaving and that is because he has cancer, he is conservative.

[dxoigmn]

Thats so stupid. Supreme Court justices rarely vote based on their own views. They do as they are sworn to do, which is to interpret the Constitution and the law to the best of their ability. Would it be better to have the court packed with liberals as opposed to conservatives? It wouldn't really matter if they did their job.

So interpreting the Constitution to the best of their ability doesn't imply opinion?

[Adron]

Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?

Israel is not oppressing the palestinians. Israel is not retaliating for terrorist attacks for pleasure either.

Ah. Al Qaeda probably doesn't retaliate against America for pleasure either. It's probably more out of lust for revenge, hatred, sense of duty, all of those "noble" feelings. Much like Israel blowing up the house of the ancestors of a suicide bombers. I suppose they feel it's in the genes.

[quasi-modo]

Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?

Israel is not oppressing the palestinians. Israel is not retaliating for terrorist attacks for pleasure either.

Ah. Al Qaeda probably doesn't retaliate against America for pleasure either. It's probably more out of lust for revenge, hatred, sense of duty, all of those "noble" feelings. Much like Israel blowing up the house of the ancestors of a suicide bombers. I suppose they feel it's in the genes.

Do you understand the difference between a country defending its self and terrorism? Terrorism in this case is not defence. If these terrorists were not blowing up busses Israel would not have to try to go after their organizations. However the terrorists are not attacking Israel because Israel puts missiles through their leaders' windows, they are attacking Israel because they hate the jews.

We did not prompt 9/11. Those terrorists hate our life style. So it is totally different from retaliation.

[hismajesty]

Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?

Israel is not oppressing the palestinians. Israel is not retaliating for terrorist attacks for pleasure either.

Ah. Al Qaeda probably doesn't retaliate against America for pleasure either. It's probably more out of lust for revenge, hatred, sense of duty, all of those "noble" feelings. Much like Israel blowing up the house of the ancestors of a suicide bombers. I suppose they feel it's in the genes.

jihad.

[TangoFour]

Those terrorists hate our life style.

Can it be that they hate the fact that Americans tend to stick their noses everywhere - which is exactly what you've been doing more since 9/11

[Adron]

Do you understand the difference between a country defending its self and terrorism? Terrorism in this case is not defence. If these terrorists were not blowing up busses Israel would not have to try to go after their organizations. However the terrorists are not attacking Israel because Israel puts missiles through their leaders' windows, they are attacking Israel because they hate the jews.

There is not an opposition between countries defending themselves and terrorism. Terrorism can be a country's (or other group's) way of defending itself. Terrorism is about creating fear. What is Israel's blowing up houses of relatives to suicide-bombers supposed to do? I can't see any other possibility than that it's supposed to create fear. Fear Israel's revenge.

You can never punish a suicide bomber after the attack; he or she is dead and can't be hurt anymore.

The terrorists aren't attacking Israel because they hate the jews. If they did, why would there be more terrorist attacks after Israel kills some palestinians? It's all about revenge. A bloody circle going round and round, killing more and more.

We did not prompt 9/11. Those terrorists hate our life style. So it is totally different from retaliation.

I don't think they'd care about your life style if you stayed at home and closed your doors. It's the effect that you're having on them that is bothering them. The way you support their enemies, the ones who are killing them, and the way you are slowly creeping closer to them, your culture spreading across the world. They fear you, and they feel the need to strike back.

[Skywing]

So you think it's our responsibility to invade other countries?  Interesting viewpoint.

I think it is our responsibility to make the world a safer place because the un is only good at writing nasty letters. If we have to take out a regime that sponsors terrorism then so be it. We should try ot solve it with diplomacy wherever possible, like libya for instance, of course, but that was not going to happen in afganistan or iraq.

You still haven't said what gives the US the authority to do this.  I don't see a majority (or even a very large minority, for that matter!) of the rest of the world approving our actions.  Doesn't that seem a little strange to you when we are trying to "make the world a safer place"?

[Hazard]

Thats so stupid. Supreme Court justices rarely vote based on their own views. They do as they are sworn to do, which is to interpret the Constitution and the law to the best of their ability. Would it be better to have the court packed with liberals as opposed to conservatives? It wouldn't really matter if they did their job.

So interpreting the Constitution to the best of their ability doesn't imply opinion?

Interpretation of the Consitution is an opinion, however it is not based on Republican or Democratic views. They interpret the Constitution as it is written. It is their job to come to a conclusion on what the Constitution says on an issue, not what a party says on an issue.

[Hazard]

Those terrorists hate our life style.

Can it be that they hate the fact that Americans tend to stick their noses everywhere - which is exactly what you've been doing more since 9/11

We "stick our noses" everywhere because thats where they extend. Face it! The United States is involved in every single nation world wide regardless if they are friend, foe, or indifferent. So much of the world's stability is based on the stability of the United States. What happens when our economy slumps? The world's economy slumps.

[Hazard]

So you think it's our responsibility to invade other countries?  Interesting viewpoint.

I think it is our responsibility to make the world a safer place because the un is only good at writing nasty letters. If we have to take out a regime that sponsors terrorism then so be it. We should try ot solve it with diplomacy wherever possible, like libya for instance, of course, but that was not going to happen in afganistan or iraq.

You still haven't said what gives the US the authority to do this.  I don't see a majority (or even a very large minority, for that matter!) of the rest of the world approving our actions.  Doesn't that seem a little strange to you when we are trying to "make the world a safer place"?

The entire world never agrees on issues, and you know it.

The fact is that no explaination we give will be good enough for you because you already have a pre-concieved response or excuse to anything we might say.

[Hazard]

The end all and be all of the situation is this:

Nothing personal against the following people but, thank God people like Skywing, Adron, dxoigmn, Mephisto, etc. don't call the shots in the real world. If they did, we'd all be royally fucked and thats all there is to it. You all live in this little dream world where people could all get along if we could hold hands and sing songs and on and on with the gumdrop fields and chocolate rivers blah blah blah. In the real world you have to make decisions, for better or worse, that effect lives. The US is forced into the position of having to do something. If we did nothing, you would curse us for not using our power to help others. When we take action, you ask what right we have to do so. A very hypocritical group who live more in the realm of theory and fantasy than in the world of reality. None of us are in a position to understand the way of all things, and to pretend that you are based on "logic" or whatever you want to base it on is ignorant. Welcome, Neo, to the real world.