Question For Republicans

[Arta]

I just don't think the world is that simple. I don't think there's only one solution to any given problem. I also don't think that the US is inherantly qualified to judge what is in the best interest of the world, which is why I think big decisions should be made by groups of countries cooperating, rather than one country acting unilaterally. For you to think that that is an impossibility (if you do) is as absurd as saying that groups of tribes could never have joined to form nations, or that groups of states could never unite for mutual benefit...

On the subject of the supreme court: To claim that judges are not influenced by their views is just silly. The very point of interpretation is to do that! If you take a thing, and say something subjective about it, you are viewing that thing in terms of your own life & experience. Someone else might see the same thing, but come up with a different conclusion. That's interpretation. That's why you see the 2nd amendment as granting the right to own a gun, and I see it as an outdated protection of states' rights. It is the job of a judge to do that - to determine not only the intent of the consitution, but to determine the 'best' (or perhaps, 'most constitutional') way to apply it in any given situation. There's no way that cannot be affected by someone's own world view. If it weren't affected by your viewpoint, then everyone would agree on it anyway, and there would be no need for a supreme court at all!

[quasi-modo]

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.

Not in the case of the palestinians it isn't. Nor is it in the case of al quida.

Terrorism is about creating fear. What is Israel's blowing up houses of relatives to suicide-bombers supposed to do?

they aren't... they are trying to kill the operatives of the terrorist organizations themselves. Their goal is not to kill innocents.
[qupte]
You can never punish a suicide bomber after the attack; he or she is dead and can't be hurt anymore.

But you can give their family 20,000... which is what saddam was doing.

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.

but where did it start? At the jews supposedly taking the land of the palestinians... when the palestinian people were never evicted, they were just forced to share with someone they had hated since they moved in from egypt back in the day.

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.

They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.

[Mephisto]

Hazard, your comment about us liberal democrats (assumption) couldn't be more wrong about us believing that the world could be 100% peacefull by holding hands and not going to war, etc.  You obviously don't understand where we come from.

[Adron]

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.

Not in the case of the palestinians it isn't. Nor is it in the case of al quida.

Can we judge that? Perhaps it's better for them to take the fight to their enemy instead of trying to hold off coca-cola when it's on their doorstep? And what is Israel doing when getting revenge? Can it be anything other than terrorism?

Terrorism is about creating fear. What is Israel's blowing up houses of relatives to suicide-bombers supposed to do?

they aren't... they are trying to kill the operatives of the terrorist organizations themselves. Their goal is not to kill innocents.

I didn't say they were killing innocents in this case, just blowing up houses:

BOMBER'S HOME BLOWN UP


On Wednesday morning, soldiers blew up the first floor of a two-storey home where one of the bombers lived in the West Bank city of Hebron, witnesses said.


The family of the second bomber was told to move out their belongings, apparently in preparation for it to be destroyed as well, they added.


The Israeli army confirmed the home had been destroyed. A spokeswoman said the routine response to suicide bombings was a message "that anyone who is party to terrorism will pay a price."

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

But you can give their family 20,000... which is what saddam was doing.

Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...

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.

but where did it start? At the jews supposedly taking the land of the palestinians... when the palestinian people were never evicted, they were just forced to share with someone they had hated since they moved in from egypt back in the day.

Yeah, that whole thing was stupid. Doesn't change what we have now though.

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.

They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.

Probably. Just like anti-gay or anti-abortion. Anti-abortionists have killed for their views I think?

There's the other thing too: Your actual attacks on them. CIA operations, support to various groups, that kind of thing. It's not only a peaceful assimilation.

[quasi-modo]

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.

Not in the case of the palestinians it isn't. Nor is it in the case of al quida.

Can we judge that? Perhaps it's better for them to take the fight to their enemy instead of trying to hold off coca-cola when it's on their doorstep? And what is Israel doing when getting revenge? Can it be anything other than terrorism?

who said Israel is getting revenge? Their tactics are geared to prevent terrorist attacks. Thats why they go after memebers of the terrorist organizations and their leaders, so that future attacks cannot be carried out.

Terrorism is about creating fear. What is Israel's blowing up houses of relatives to suicide-bombers supposed to do?

they aren't... they are trying to kill the operatives of the terrorist organizations themselves. Their goal is not to kill innocents.

I didn't say they were killing innocents in this case, just blowing up houses:

BOMBER'S HOME BLOWN UP


On Wednesday morning, soldiers blew up the first floor of a two-storey home where one of the bombers lived in the West Bank city of Hebron, witnesses said.


The family of the second bomber was told to move out their belongings, apparently in preparation for it to be destroyed as well, they added.


The Israeli army confirmed the home had been destroyed. A spokeswoman said the routine response to suicide bombings was a message "that anyone who is party to terrorism will pay a price."

Saddam's 20,000 to the family basically tells the bombers that if they do this their family will be taken care of. This is Israel's counter on that, saying no it does not work that way.

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

But you can give their family 20,000... which is what saddam was doing.

Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...

it adds incentive for him to blow himself up. It gets rid of the disencentive. It is a bad thing.

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.

but where did it start? At the jews supposedly taking the land of the palestinians... when the palestinian people were never evicted, they were just forced to share with someone they had hated since they moved in from egypt back in the day.

Yeah, that whole thing was stupid. Doesn't change what we have now though.

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.

They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.

Probably. Just like anti-gay or anti-abortion. Anti-abortionists have killed for their views I think?

But the difference is, we prosecute people who do that. Whenever Israel tries to take action against terrorism the world pisses on them.

There's the other thing too: Your actual attacks on them. CIA operations, support to various groups, that kind of thing. It's not only a peaceful assimilation.

Examples?

All of this back and fourth quoting is getting very confusing.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Environment: Bush sucks. No denying that.

Foreign Affairs: It's a bit...unfair...that we stick our nose everywhere. However, it is our duty as the world superpower to ensure stability. To do this, we must stick our nose everywhere.

[Kp]

Hazard, your comment about us liberal democrats (assumption) couldn't be more wrong about us believing that the world could be 100% peacefull by holding hands and not going to war, etc.  You obviously don't understand where we come from.

and such a terse post is not going to help anyone understand where you are coming from.  Perhaps you'd care to elaborate a bit?

[quasi-modo]

Environment: Bush sucks. No denying that..

Not so sure about that, I have yet to see the environment get worse. I thought bush was proposing a hike or proposed a pollution tax or something.

[hismajesty]

He passed the 'Clean air and skies' legislation.

[quasi-modo]

He passed the 'Clean air and skies' legislation.

which is? I could google it but I would probably come up with some bush bashing sites that say it is a smoke screen or bs or something.

[Adron]

who said Israel is getting revenge? Their tactics are geared to prevent terrorist attacks. Thats why they go after memebers of the terrorist organizations and their leaders, so that future attacks cannot be carried out.

Actually, most I see talk about Israel getting revenge after every suicide bombing. A quick oogle came up with "Israeli officials were deliberating this week about how to retaliate to a suicide bombing Tuesday", from Jewish Bulletin Online, which should be Israel-friendly enough?

BOMBER'S HOME BLOWN UP

Saddam's 20,000 to the family basically tells the bombers that if they do this their family will be taken care of. This is Israel's counter on that, saying no it does not work that way.

It may be Israel's counter, but it's still an act against innocent people, intended to scare, i.e. terrorism. It's not punishment of the perpetrator, because the perpetrator is already dead and cannot be punished.

Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...

it adds incentive for him to blow himself up. It gets rid of the disencentive. It is a bad thing.

I wouldn't say it adds incentive, but yes, it gets rid of some disincentive. Which means it's bad for Israel. There are likely more terrorist attacks with it than without it. Still, it's support aimed at children. It's not like paying money to some terrorist organization.

They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.

Probably. Just like anti-gay or anti-abortion. Anti-abortionists have killed for their views I think?

But the difference is, we prosecute people who do that. Whenever Israel tries to take action against terrorism the world pisses on them.

It depends on what action Israel takes. Currently, "the world" thinks Israel is hurting innocent palestinians as much as or more than the terrorist groups, which actually encourages terrorist strikes.

There's the other thing too: Your actual attacks on them. CIA operations, support to various groups, that kind of thing. It's not only a peaceful assimilation.

Examples?

All of this back and fourth quoting is getting very confusing.

That wasn't intended to point at some particular event, more at the history of the USA as supporting underground movements in other countries, organizations working outside the legal system in those states. Something that could be very close to supporting terrorists, btw. What I meant was that a muslim state (that isn't friends with America) may have to worry about their internal enemies getting outside support.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

He passed the 'Clean air and skies' legislation.

It's a deceptive name:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=294154&category=OPINION&BCCode=&newsdate=10/12/2004

[hismajesty]

And here is his eviromental plan for the next four years:

Clear Skies Initiative: President Bush will work to secure passage of the Clear Skies Initiative to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury by 70 percent and help the states meet tougher new air quality standards.

Clean Air Interstate Rule: President Bush will complete the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which will require the steepest emissions cuts in over a decade.

Mercury Rule: President Bush is the first President to propose caps on emissions of mercury and he will finalize the rule that will cut mercury emissions from power plants by 70 percent. This rule will improve public health and protect children and pregnant women.

Farm Bill Conservation Programs: President Bush will aggressively implement programs that will dedicate a record $40 billion over a decade to restore millions of acres of wetlands, protect habitats, conserve water, and improve streams and rivers near working farms and ranches. This commitment will include early re-enrollment and contract extensions for the Conservation Reserve Program and expansion of quail and wetlands habitat.

Initiate Environmentally Safe Exploration: President Bush will seek to promote environmentally sound domestic oil production in just one percent of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which could provide up to 1 million barrels of oil a day for nearly 20 years.

Ensure Greater Electricity Reliability: President Bush will work to modernize our electricity grid, establish mandatory reliability standards, and encourage new transmission investment, in order to help prevent a repeat of last year's blackout that affected 50 million people.

Encourage Use of Efficient Technologies: President Bush will provide incentives for deployment of efficient technologies for storage and transmission of energy, further contributing to the reliability of our electric grid.

Promote Conservation and Support Energy Technologies: The President's plan will provide $4 billion in tax incentives to spur the use of energy technologies.

[quasi-modo]

who said Israel is getting revenge? Their tactics are geared to prevent terrorist attacks. Thats why they go after memebers of the terrorist organizations and their leaders, so that future attacks cannot be carried out.

Actually, most I see talk about Israel getting revenge after every suicide bombing. A quick oogle came up with "Israeli officials were deliberating this week about how to retaliate to a suicide bombing Tuesday", from Jewish Bulletin Online, which should be Israel-friendly enough?

Israel's retaliation is most likely against the terrorist group that launched the attack. For instace putting a missile through the window of the Hamas leaders car.

BOMBER'S HOME BLOWN UP

Saddam's 20,000 to the family basically tells the bombers that if they do this their family will be taken care of. This is Israel's counter on that, saying no it does not work that way.

[
It may be Israel's counter, but it's still an act against innocent people, intended to scare, i.e. terrorism. It's not punishment of the perpetrator, because the perpetrator is already dead and cannot be punished.

Who said it is always against innocent people? Its also meant to be a disincentive. If he knows this will happen he is not going to blow himself up in the first place.

Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...

it adds incentive for him to blow himself up. It gets rid of the disencentive. It is a bad thing.

I wouldn't say it adds incentive, but yes, it gets rid of some disincentive. Which means it's bad for Israel. There are likely more terrorist attacks with it than without it. Still, it's support aimed at children. It's not like paying money to some terrorist organization.

it is not a bad thing. How does it get rid of disincentive to blow ones self up? What I was referring to before adding incentive was the 20,000 given to families... did I miss something?

They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.

Probably. Just like anti-gay or anti-abortion. Anti-abortionists have killed for their views I think?

But the difference is, we prosecute people who do that. Whenever Israel tries to take action against terrorism the world pisses on them.

It depends on what action Israel takes. Currently, "the world" thinks Israel is hurting innocent palestinians as much as or more than the terrorist groups, which actually encourages terrorist strikes.

and this is where the UN in particular is wrong.

There's the other thing too: Your actual attacks on them. CIA operations, support to various groups, that kind of thing. It's not only a peaceful assimilation.

Examples?

All of this back and fourth quoting is getting very confusing.

That wasn't intended to point at some particular event, more at the history of the USA as supporting underground movements in other countries, organizations working outside the legal system in those states. Something that could be very close to supporting terrorists, btw. What I meant was that a muslim state (that isn't friends with America) may have to worry about their internal enemies getting outside support.

We used tactics like this a lot against communism though. Not against terrorist groups. For example, supporting the rebels in afganistan.

[Adron]

who said Israel is getting revenge? Their tactics are geared to prevent terrorist attacks. Thats why they go after memebers of the terrorist organizations and their leaders, so that future attacks cannot be carried out.

Actually, most I see talk about Israel getting revenge after every suicide bombing. A quick oogle came up with "Israeli officials were deliberating this week about how to retaliate to a suicide bombing Tuesday", from Jewish Bulletin Online, which should be Israel-friendly enough?

Israel's retaliation is most likely against the terrorist group that launched the attack. For instace putting a missile through the window of the Hamas leaders car.

Sometimes it is that. All I wanted to say was that they seek revenge, not just justice or prevention.

It may be Israel's counter, but it's still an act against innocent people, intended to scare, i.e. terrorism. It's not punishment of the perpetrator, because the perpetrator is already dead and cannot be punished.

Who said it is always against innocent people? Its also meant to be a disincentive. If he knows this will happen he is not going to blow himself up in the first place.

Well, I didn't say it's always against innocent people. I was picking an example of what they typically do. Saying that Israel always killed innocent people would be like saying the palestinians have never killed an Israeli soldier. Hamas probably means their attacks also as a disincentive as well.

Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...

it adds incentive for him to blow himself up. It gets rid of the disencentive. It is a bad thing.

I wouldn't say it adds incentive, but yes, it gets rid of some disincentive. Which means it's bad for Israel. There are likely more terrorist attacks with it than without it. Still, it's support aimed at children. It's not like paying money to some terrorist organization.

it is not a bad thing. How does it get rid of disincentive to blow ones self up? What I was referring to before adding incentive was the 20,000 given to families... did I miss something?

I meant that you don't have the disincentive of worrying about how your family will survive after Israel destroys the house of those innocent people. It outweighs some of the evil that Israel is doing against the innocents.

Whenever Israel tries to take action against terrorism the world pisses on them.

It depends on what action Israel takes. Currently, "the world" thinks Israel is hurting innocent palestinians as much as or more than the terrorist groups, which actually encourages terrorist strikes.

and this is where the UN in particular is wrong.

That's opinion
I think the UN is right in that, and that Israel needs to cool down a bit. Luckily that might just be happening now.

That wasn't intended to point at some particular event, more at the history of the USA as supporting underground movements in other countries, organizations working outside the legal system in those states. Something that could be very close to supporting terrorists, btw. What I meant was that a muslim state (that isn't friends with America) may have to worry about their internal enemies getting outside support.

We used tactics like this a lot against communism though. Not against terrorist groups. For example, supporting the rebels in afganistan.

Yes, those tactics are useful against legitimate governments that you don't want wage an open war against. And the reason it's used against legitimate goverments is more a question of definition. If used against a terrorist group, like perhaps ETA, or IRA, you can support the Spanish or British government openly. I suppose it can be seen as a general case of USA supporting whatever group it likes, be it legitimate government or illegitimate groups.