Search results

More importantly, it was a law that was rarely enforced. But the existance of the law was used to discriminate. It was a bad law, and Bowers was an awful decision. It's gone, and the majority opinion was written extremely broadly. (Which is why Scalia was so upset). The practical...

Well, not to interrupt your certainity, but isn't it possible, I mean just the tiniest bit, that people tend to hold America, bastion of freedom and civil rights, to a higher standard than a dictator? Offhand, if the Pope shot someone in cold blood, and a gang-member shot someone in cold...

cenimo: Have you ever wondered why we stopped short of Baghdad? Ever bothered to work out what was driving Bush the Elder there? Why he made that decision? Or do you simply call it a "mistake" without ever understanding what the decision was all about?

Let me point out how sad it is that, in a deliberate attempt to be as over the top and sarcastic as possible, even after referencing A Modest Proposal, my words were still taken seriously. That says a lot about what many people apparantly believe. l33tace: Saddam rules an Islamic nation...

In modern parlance, "terrorism" is the deliberate targeting of civilians in leui of military targets. IE, suicide bombs exploding in a marketplace, as opposed to a barracks, or flying airplanes into the World Trade Center, as opposed to the Pentagon (the latter assuming an empty plane. Use...

So did A Modest Proposal.

You mean the ones in Kurdish controlled Iraq under our no-fly zone? You're not seriously claiming those are Saddam's, are you? I'm still wondering how come we never bombed them.... Wolsely: Terrorism != "nasty government". Perhaps you should define "terrorist" first. I'd certainly...

How is Iraq a "terrorist state"?

I support our troops. I oppose this war. I am not a pacifist. Nor am I doing so out of being "anti-Bush". Nor am I backed by some nefarious concern. I oppose this war, as I have all along, because it is a war that destabilizes the war and makes life more dangerous, not less. Once I saw...

They're not human. It's a documented fact. Iraqi's aren't human. Especially Saddam Hussein. They're not even animals. They're pure evil who are too stupid to do anything for reasons other than evil. Your mistake, Taffsada, is assuming Saddam Hussien is a rational human being, that...

Offhand, I don't think that's Cleese. I think I saw that elsewhere. The Onion, I think.

100,000 French soldiers fell defending Paris in WWII, despite being outnumbered, outgunned, and outgeneraled. They held for a suprisingly long time, especially in the few places with tanks. German casualties were high as well. You better get down on your knees and pray Iraq surrenders...

Acting as if they are equivilant violations is the obtuse position, especially if you do not also take into account the specifics of the conflict. Me? I'd love to see a world where the Geneva Conventions are always honored to the T. However, I live in the real one. So it does not...

Yes, but it's twice as much if they're alive. So why, exactly, would you execute half of them, when it's costing you roughly 16,000 dollars for each one you kill? I mean, I realize that stupid people exist and all, but you'd think that there'd be an NCO or such that would be smart enough...

Which wouldn't really matter much to me if I was defending my homeland. After all, what use did I have for cowards unwilling to defend America's soil? Perhaps that would make them fight....* And, of course, there's the fact that, as far as violating the Geneva Convention goes, Saddam is...

No. Luckily, I didn't see coalition soldiers like that either. Oh wait, I know what you're referring to. Those dead coalition soldiers with bloody heads? Well, before jumping to the conclusion they were executed, I realized there were two other possibilities: 1) The occasional Iraqi can...

Your post acted as if there was no difference whatosever from an outgunned and outmatched force fighting invaders by using things like false surrenders, and an overpowering invader using nuclear weapons on a weak country. As the two cases are as dissimilar as it is possible to be, I felt...

No. I hold America to high standards. Is there any reason I should not? Indeed, I even stated that where America to be invaded, I not only would be all in favor of dirty tricks, I'd be out there pulling them. Goodness. What an amusing way of thinking about things. Why would it be...

Sure. Right now. If Saddam were to "fight fair", he'd lose. He'd be killed, or at least removed from power. Iraq would be conquered (or liberated, depending on your view). A similiar example from our own history: We refused to fight the British in the 1770s the "civilized way". Because...

Just saw reports. Not a chemical weapons facility, according to US officials. NBC reports no chemicals were found there. CNN reports the Pentagon believes it was abandonded a long time ago. Be a bit of a skeptic. Learn to use your BS detector. :)