Justice?

[randolph]

Wikipedia

Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics.

In view of the vote by Republicans in Congress to "privatize" medicare and severely reduce funding for many public programs including family planning.

Do these Congressmen and their corporate masters have any sense of justice?

[franalexes]

Ask Governor Blogo'.
then Bill ( I never had sex with that woman) Clinton

They know all about justice.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

then Bill ( I never had sex with that woman) Clinton

They know all about justice.

What about W going AWOL from the reserve durning NAM
And W twisting the truth about WMDS inorder to get his Iruaq qar a war he was planning back when he was govorner in Texas
And lets not forget a lieing sack of crap govorner in FL in 2000 who riged an election
And yet you harp on Clinton because he got a BJ from a willing adult female and so he lied about it, something every single married man on the earth would do
and unlike W's lie no soliders were killed cause of it
If there was justice W, Rice, Channey and Romsfeld would all be brought up on war crimes and W would have been impeached for his lies to congress
the GOP wanted to impeach Clinton over a BJ and W they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Ask Governor Blogo'.
then Bill ( I never had sex with that woman) Clinton

They know all about justice.

Lying, that's what politicians do best.

Is it just that Congress keeps giving tax breaks to the rich while working people pay more for food and fuel and pay more of the tax burden?

[ila]

Originally Posted by transjen

...And yet you harp on Clinton because he got a BJ from a willing adult female and so he lied about it, something every single married man on the earth would do
and unlike W's lie no soliders were killed cause of it
If there was justice W, Rice, Channey and Romsfeld would all be brought up on war crimes and W would have been impeached for his lies to congress
the GOP wanted to impeach Clinton over a BJ and W they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen

I could never understand why your congress wanted to impeach Clinton over this affair. What happened had no effect on or consequences to the running of your country.

The biggest injustice in all this was how Monica was pilloried by the media and many citizens.

[franalexes]

they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen[/QUOTE]

The THEY you are talking about was a democrat congress.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

I could never understand why your congress wanted to impeach Clinton over this affair. What happened had no effect on or consequences to the running of your country.

The biggest injustice in all this was how Monica was pilloried by the media and many citizens.

The Republicans jumped all over Clinton because he "lied". Why? Because they were doing everything possible to prevent him from accomplishing anything. It was an extreme form of harassment and politically motivated.
Hanky panky is a way of life in Congress, what a bunch of total hypocrites!

Clinton lied but nobody died (bumper sticker)

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

...Hanky panky is a way of life in Congress, what a bunch of total hypocrites!

There's a lot of truth in that statement, randolph. Politicians are either screwing each other or the public and it's nonstop.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

There's a lot of truth in that statement, randolph. Politicians are either screwing each other or the public and it's nonstop.

How about Canada? We don't hear much about what goes on up there.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

How about Canada? We don't hear much about what goes on up there.

It's the same with different players.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen

The THEY you are talking about was a democrat congress.[/QUOTE]


Fran i fear you have being hanging with Tracy far too long as you seemed to have forgotten that when W lied the house and sen where under GOP control and was controlled by the same members that wanted to impeach Clinton for getting a BJ so the way it looks is that getting a BJ is the worst thing ever but starting a war on lies is okie dookie as long as you are GOP
Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Congress talks about jobs while they provide tax incentives to move jobs overseas. GE and other multinationals play games and avoid paying any taxes. What is the justice in that?

[smc]

A wise man once said that trying to have a rational discussion with people who do not understand the simple concept of moral inequivalency is perhaps the greatest waste of time to which humans wrongly aspire.

[shadows]

Originally Posted by randolph

How about Canada? We don't hear much about what goes on up there.

We'll let you know after the upcoming election.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

A wise man once said that trying to have a rational discussion with people who do not understand the simple concept of moral inequivalency is perhaps the greatest waste of time to which humans wrongly aspire.

There is lots of discussions about moral equivalency on the internet but I could find nothing on moral inequivalency. Would you care to elaborate on its meaning?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

There is lots of discussions about moral equivalency on the internet but I could find nothing on moral inequivalency. Would you care to elaborate on its meaning?

It is simply my way of stating that the false moral equivalence so often proposed by some (e.g., invading Iraq on a lie or getting a blowjob from a White House interns as having some sort of moral equivalence in the pantheon of presidential behavior) should more correctly and accurately be called moral inequivalence.

In other words, the false moral equivalence established in arguments reveals moral inequivalence.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

It is simply my way of stating that the false moral equivalence so often proposed by some (e.g., invading Iraq on a lie or getting a blowjob from a White House interns as having some sort of moral equivalence in the pantheon of presidential behavior) should more correctly and accurately be called moral inequivalence.

In other words, the false moral equivalence established in arguments reveals moral inequivalence.

It would appear that since WWII our foreign policy has been to a great extent been based on, as you say "moral inequivalance".
Justice continues to take a back seat. For example, the recent trade agreement with Columbia favors our multinational corporations instead of the local farmers of Columbia.
NAFTA was a moral disaster causing severe disruption in Mexico and consequent migration of dispossessed farmers to the US.

[Enoch Root]

Does the US have a tendency to destroy the agricultural capacities of other countries? This is the second time I've read of this on this forum.

I've been told of a crazy story about Monsanto screwing over small American farmers. Monsanto genetically engineered a strain of corn. This corn bred with the corn from small farmers. Except the farmers didn't pollinate their corn with Monsanto's genetically engineered brand. It just happened as these things happen in nature. Monsanto sued the small farmers for theft of some kind and won.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

It would appear that since WWII our foreign policy has been to a great extent been based on, as you say "moral inequivalance".
Justice continues to take a back seat. For example, the recent trade agreement with Columbia favors our multinational corporations instead of the local farmers of Columbia.
NAFTA was a moral disaster causing severe disruption in Mexico and consequent migration of dispossessed farmers to the US.

And this surprises you? Capitalism is, by its very nature, unjust. Why, then, would a capitalist trade agreement largely imposed by a powerful capitalist nation on smaller nations as a condition of their ability to participate in the worldwide capitalist market be anything but unjust?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

And this surprises you? Capitalism is, by its very nature, unjust. Why, then, would a capitalist trade agreement largely imposed by a powerful capitalist nation on smaller nations as a condition of their ability to participate in the worldwide capitalist market be anything but unjust?

It doesn't really surprise me, it's been going on for a long time ( banana episode in Guatemala). What I find encouraging is that developing countries like Brazil are becoming resistant to it and telling us to shove it, ie WTO and it's hegemony adjenda.

I had some hope that the Obama administration would take a more considerate and just approach to trade negotiations with Latin American countries, but such is not the case.

[Enoch Root]

Except in Brazil it's the same case as in the US: a small elite control everything and exploit everyone.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Except in Brazil it's the same case: a small elite control everything and exploit everyone.

We subsidize the production of corn based alcohol and have substantial tariffs on importing Brazil's alcohol.
The subsidy has caused food corn, prices to soar around the world causing severe stress in poor countries where food costs take much of their income.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

It doesn't really surprise me, it's been going on for a long time ( banana episode in Guatemala). What I find encouraging is that developing countries like Brazil are becoming resistant to it and telling us to shove it, ie WTO and it's hegemony adjenda.

I had some hope that the Obama administration would take a more considerate and just approach to trade negotiations with Latin American countries, but such is not the case.

The sooner those who support true economic justice realize that the Democrats and Republicans are simply flipsides of the same coin, serving the same masters with slightly different approaches, the sooner such "hope" will be relegated to the dustbin of history where it belongs, to be replaced by profound understanding that spurs action.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

I could never understand why your congress wanted to impeach Clinton over this affair. What happened had no effect on or consequences to the running of your country.

I completely agree. The republicans just wanted any excuse to try and get him out. Did they really think it would work? All they did was waste the country's time and money, and distract Clinton from things that actually mattered, like the growing presence of Al Qaeda.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I completely agree. The republicans just wanted any excuse to try and get him out. Did they really think it would work? All they did was waste the country's time and money, and distract Clinton from things that actually mattered, like the growing presence of Al Qaeda.

That's so true.
What mystifies me is why officials in high places are willing to risk everything for a few moments of sex. I surely know what it's like to be horny but to spend thousands of dollars for a fuck or take advantage of an intern? What is up with these guys, does all that power make them obsessed with sex?

Anyway, the relentless harassment of Clinton was outrageous. It is to his credit that he survived and his Presidency survived. I think it was because the public realized it was unjust.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

And W twisting the truth about WMDS inorder to get his Iruaq qar a war he was planning back when he was govorner in Texas

Tell me Jen, was Bill Clinton lying in 1998 when he said this?

Originally Posted by Bill Clinton

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.

Was Hillary Clinton lying in 2002 when she said this?

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Was Clinton's secretary of defence lying in 2002 when he said this?

Originally Posted by William Cohen

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.

Was Ted Kennedy lying in 2002 when he said this?

Originally Posted by Ted Kennedy

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

There's many more quotes I could add, but we'll start with these for now.

Originally Posted by transjen

And lets not forget a lieing sack of crap govorner in FL in 2000 who riged an election

Evidence ?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Tell me Jen, was Bill Clinton lying in 1998 when he said this?


Was Hillary Clinton lying in 2002 when she said this?


Was Clinton's secretary of defence lying in 2002 when he said this?


Was Ted Kennedy lying in 2002 when he said this?


There's many more quotes I could add, but we'll start with these for now.

Evidence ?

Throughout history, one could find example after example where politicians from different sides of the fence (so to speak) utter similar assessments about this or that. What matters is what they DO. Hence, Tracy Coxx's litany of statements gets us nowhere. We can argue until the cows come home whether Bush and Kennedy, Clinton, Cohen, et al. made similar statements. But only Bush, none of these others, went to war over this when inspectors were giving evidence to the contrary. Only Bush preemptively invaded a country that had not attacked the United and lied about the connections between that country and those who had attacked the United States. Only Bush stood up before Congress and knowingly lied about Iraq, uraniam, and Niger as justification to send American soldiers to lose their lives for a lie. Not Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, not William Cohen, not Ted Kennedy, not any of the people in Tracy Coxx's litany of quotes taken out of the context of historical ACTION.

[smc]

^ Just to follow up:

What Tracy Coxx would have us believe by the manner of the post with quotes from others is the equivalent of saying that every politician who spoke out against the Contras in Nicaragua is complicit with the Reagan Administration in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Any reasonable person knows how ridiculous a notion that is.

[randolph]

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?
2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?
3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?
4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?
2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?
3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?
4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

I'm not saying a case couldn't be made that the Iraq war was unnecessary. I'm just sick of this bullshit that has been going around since the 2004 election that it was all Bush's fault and only Bush's fault. Bush followed what the intelligence from the CIA was showing, and has been showing since 1998 - that Saddam had WMDs and wasn't getting rid of them according to the UN resolution. The mistake has been the CIA's all along.

The country was pretty much one voice after 9/11. There were bipartisan intelligence committees in congress going over all the intelligence data. They were all on the same page about what it incorrectly showed. Bush did not start the Iraq war all by himself. The House of Representatives voted for it 297/133. The Senate voted for it 77/23. Based not only on the Bush administration's case but on the bipartisan intelligence committees findings.

Then comes the 2004 elections and the dems couldn't be seen agreeing with the president all the time. There would be no reason to vote for them if they were simply going along with Bush. So there was a sudden shift where all of Bush's bipartisan support evaporated and the presidential campaign was on. That's when WMD experts like Sean Penn, George palney and Michael Moore started the campaign against Bush. It was a circus full of lies and revisionist history and the opposition has been in this mode ever since the 2004 election.

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

What is the benefit? The billions of dollars spent? The thousands of lives lost? The bitter acrimony against the United States throughout the Muslim world? The lower oil prices from occupying an oil-producing country? The permanent military presence the United States will be able to establish in Iraq? Name the benefit. "Yes" is not sufficient.

Originally Posted by randolph

2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

I do know some Iraqis. While you're busy imagining what they think might be nice, they remind me that there was no sectarian violence in Iraq before the United States invaded, that despite living under a despot there was general peace in the country, that other than the criminal blockade that kept medicine (primarily) from children foodstuffs were generally available ... etc., etc., etc. At least one of my Iraqi acquaintances has told me that he would take the entire Hussein family in power for his entire life over the death of his 76-year-old mother in a bombing by the United States military.

Originally Posted by randolph

3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

The answer to this question is yes, even if Tracy Coxx reveals a profound lack of understanding of the region. The current Iraqi regime supported by the United States is closely aligned with Iran. Prior to the invasion and occupation, Iran had little influence in Iraq. Now, as the CIA itself acknowledges, Iran wields enormous political influence within the sitting Iraqi government. And who made that happen? The United States.

Originally Posted by randolph

4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

Iraq became "an Al Qaeda magnet" after the U.S. invasion, because there's nothing like an unwarranted invasion of a Muslim country to aid the recruitment of Muslim radicals and get them to go and fight the "infidel" in the invaded country.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What is the benefit? The billions of dollars spent? The thousands of lives lost? The bitter acrimony ...

Randolf, I believe it's against forum rules to be using two accounts.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Tell me Jen, was Bill Clinton lying in 1998 when he said this?


Was Hillary Clinton lying in 2002 when she said this?


Was Clinton's secretary of defence lying in 2002 when he said this?


Was Ted Kennedy lying in 2002 when he said this?


There's many more quotes I could add, but we'll start with these for now.

Evidence ?

AH yes the old blame Clinton stratagee, You would have a point if Clinton took the info and started the war which he didn't as unlike W Clinton didn't have a grugde agianst Sadam so he was smart enought to read the report raise an eyebrow and say we better keep an eye on this joker, W on the other hand took the report and twisted and fudged it and outright lied with his cabinet marching in step behind him


No matter how you try to spin it W lied and soliders died
And proof of FL sleaze of a governor he is W weasle little brother who put Kathrine Harris as head of elections even tho it was a pure conflict of interest as she was also the head of W's FL election camp and lets not forget the until 2000 FL never had ballot problems, Jed and Kathrine rigged the election and the unsupreme court on a straight partyline vote of 5-4 the USA and made the worst president ever the president and we have been surfering ever since
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Randolf, I believe it's against forum rules to be using two accounts.

I guess when one doesn't even respect the discussion -- or a single one of the discussants (including those with whom there is agreement) -- enough to respond to actual points made, it's time to pull out a bullshit statement like this. Everyone knows it's not Randolph doing my posting.As I wrote elsewhere, it's political cowardice when someone throws out ideological "bombs" or regurgitates talking points but won't back them up in real discourse.

[randolph]

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

The U.S. Supreme Court was not established to be the "final arbiter of justice," but rather to interpret whether a law falls within the strictures of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, when blacks in this country were slaves, the Supreme Court found that the institution of slavery was "constitutional." Would anyone here argue that slavery as an institution represents justice in any way, shape, or form? I don't think so. This illustrates that "justice" per se is not the purview of the Supreme Court.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

WIth appointees like Sonia Sotomayor, it's heading towards political decisions. One or two more appointees like her and the Supreme Court will be as loony as the 9th Circuit Court. Only there will be no one to overturn them.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

WIth appointees like Sonia Sotomayor, it's heading towards political decisions. One or two more appointees like her and the Supreme Court will be as loony as the 9th Circuit Court. Only there will be no one to overturn them.

People Tracy Coxx agrees with render justice. People Tracy Coxx disagrees with make political decisions.

What a facile pile of crap. It's not even a serious argument.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

People Tracy Coxx agrees with render justice. People Tracy Coxx disagrees with make political decisions.

What a facile pile of crap. It's not even a serious argument.

I was responding to randolph actually.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I was responding to randolph actually.

Anyone can comment on any posts in these threads. It is obvious that you go out of your way not to deal with the points I raise about your vapid political arguments, but if you want to have private conversations with Randolph do so via PMs.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

WIth appointees like Sonia Sotomayor, it's heading towards political decisions. One or two more appointees like her and the Supreme Court will be as loony as the 9th Circuit Court. Only there will be no one to overturn them.

For once i total agree with you but just so hell doesn't freeze over i do need to remind you that she was on W's short list for the court

Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

For once i total agree with you but just so hell doesn't freeze over i do need to remind you that she was on W's short list for the court

I never liked W's stance on illegal immigration, and I'm sure she's just the kind of judge he would have been looking for.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I never liked W's stance on illegal immigration, and I'm sure she's just the kind of judge he would have been looking for.

NEWS FLASH HELL JUST FROZE OVER
In other words for the second time tonight i aggree with you 100%
Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

The U.S. Supreme Court was not established to be the "final arbiter of justice," but rather to interpret whether a law falls within the strictures of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, when blacks in this country were slaves, the Supreme Court found that the institution of slavery was "constitutional." Would anyone here argue that slavery as an institution represents justice in any way, shape, or form? I don't think so. This illustrates that "justice" per se is not the purview of the Supreme Court.

When the Constitution was being developed, the issue of slavery was discussed and some members wanted it abolished. The final version avoided the issue. So in a sense, slavery was neither Constitutional or unconstitutional.

When Earl Warren was on the Supreme Court, he would ask before making a decision "is it fair?". To me, that is the same as, is it just?. Justice is the "purview" of the Supreme Court because the Constitution is based on the concept of Justice. "Liberty and justice for all"

It seems to me that the current court is dominated by members that put their personal extreme conservatism above the realities of the Constitution.
The decision to allow corporations to buy Congress was one of the most egregious unfair unjust decisions ever made by the Court and is unconstitutional, in my opinion.

[randolph]

Tracy

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

I don't think is dragged out for lack of support. It dragged out because of extremely poor planning for the implementation of the war by Rumsfield.

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

The war was devastating for the people of Iraq and opened up a contentious battle between Shias and Sunnies for control of the country that probably will never be resolved.

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

Again it is a conflict between Sunnies and Shias. Iran is run by fanatical Shias and is of great concern to Saudi Arabia who has just ordered billions of dollars of military equipment to bolster their military.

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

Al Qaeda was a minor issue in Iraq. If we had focused on Afghanistan instead of Iraq, we could have cleaned out Al Qaeda and possibly stabilized Afghanistan.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The war was devastating for the people of Iraq and opened up a contentious battle between Shias and Sunnies for control of the country that probably will never be resolved.

Just wondering... say we never went to war with Iraq in 2003. Flash forward to 2011 and there are riots happening in countries all over the middle east as there are now. Do you think the Shias and/or the Sunnies would rebel against Saddam? It's happened in so many countries I can't imagine that it wouldn't have happened in Iraq as well. Some will call that hypothetical, but I really can't think of any reason why it wouldn't. And I find it interesting that neither of the two groups are rebelling now.

About question 3... Sorry, when I originally answered your question about Iran, I originally thought you asked if the war DECREASED the influence of Iran. Yes, it did increase the influence of Iran. And back to what I was saying earlier, we could have taken care of Iran with our strategic position if support for the war against terror had survived the 2004 election.

Originally Posted by randolph

Al Qaeda was a minor issue in Iraq. If we had focused on Afghanistan instead of Iraq, we could have cleaned out Al Qaeda and possibly stabilized Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda never was a one country organization. They had abandoned Afghanistan after we took control of the country. They weren't going to come back and fight for it. When we went to war with Iraq they saw that our influence in the region was about to expand a great deal more and they did want to fight against that.

btw... for those who say our presence there caused bitter acrimony against the US in the muslim world, they should have thought about that before they attacked the US. The fact is that the US was attacked by muslim extremists. I don't criticize them for attacking the pentagon. It's an act of war, certainly, but I recognize that that's a military target. That bullshit they pulled in New York is another matter. Did Al Qaeda consider that that might cause bitter acrimony in the US against muslims?

[randolph]

Tracy

Just wondering... say we never went to war with Iraq in 2003. Flash forward to 2011 and there are riots happening in countries all over the middle east as there are now. Do you think the Shias and/or the Sunnies would rebel against Saddam? It's happened in so many countries I can't imagine that it wouldn't have happened in Iraq as well. Some will call that hypothetical, but I really can't think of any reason why it wouldn't. And I find it interesting that neither of the two groups are rebelling now.

Interesting thought. After years of war and violence, the Iraqi's are free of tyranny. Conflict continues between the the religious sects for power. As tyranny declines in Africa and the Middle East, I suspect tribal and religious conflicts will escalate and make governing these countries very difficult. Western style democracy is wishful thinking. Some kind of strong leadership will eventually evolve that is able to suppress all the conflicts. Syria is coming unglued. Who is next Iran or Saudi Arabia?

btw... for those who say our presence there caused bitter acrimony against the US in the muslim world, they should have thought about that before they attacked the US. The fact is that the US was attacked by muslim extremists. I don't criticize them for attacking the pentagon. It's an act of war, certainly, but I recognize that that's a military target. That bullshit they pulled in New York is another matter. Did Al Qaeda consider that that might cause bitter acrimony in the US against muslims?

The "terrorist" mentality seems very self destructive to me. Everything they do strengthens their opposition and increases the hate and suspicion of Islam. What is the point of suicide bombers that kill themselves and a few innocent people? To me Al Quida is the very essence of evil.
I understand the opposition of Muslims to the dominance of the West in the middle East. The rebellions across the area are not inspired by Al Quida, however, they are derived from over population, unemployment and lack of opportunity to have a decent life.

[The Conquistador]

There are only 3 forms of justice in this world: Chuck Norris, Shaq and Steven Seagal...

[giggygig]

Shouldnt this be discussed in a american section not general discussion?
I dont really have a clue what you are talking about. Not knowing your politics but healthcare should be free and not run for profit.

[GRH]

Randolph, your knowledge of the Constitution is rather lacking when you say that the document didn't specifically address slavery. Do you not recall the 3/5 compromise which counted a slave as 3/5's of a person for the purpose of taxation and Congressional representation? If this wasn't a flat-out endorsement of slavery, then I don't know what is.

So given that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret what is legally permissible under the Constitution...I think it's entirely fair to say that deciding "justice" is not the primary purpose of the Court. If there was any justice in our nation, elections would be decided by the vote instead of by 5 Republican justices.