February 27, 2004
@ 11:36 PM

I've been watching the online discussions about the proposed constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage with bemusement. It is such a classic sleight of hand trick. If I was a sitting president who'd been discovered to have started a war that cost thousands of lives primarily to enrich my defence contractor buddies and had the opposition party's presidential candidates polling better than me I'd want to come up with a way to focus the public discourse away from these issues. Perhaps with controversial proposed legislation that would be a hot button topic but most likely wouldn't get passed anyway? Yeah, probably.  

It is unfortunate that such political games end up affecting people's lives and preventing the pursuit of happiness. At least it's not another phony war.


Friday, February 27, 2004 11:46:51 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Since the war is useless (in accordance with your post), how is America to prevent a 9-11 event, then?
Ryan Dawson
Friday, February 27, 2004 11:58:35 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Deja vu - remember the proposed amendment to ban flag-burning?
Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:41:24 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Do you really think that the fact that the United States invaded Iraq without just cause actually makes it LESS likely that pissed off fundamentalist muslim would exist?
Saturday, February 28, 2004 6:24:41 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I think it is a loaded question. Anyway, I don't hear much about bombings in Israel, is it the case that Sadaam is not there to pay the family $25,000 anymore? Possibly (I don't know because the Iraq news could be drowning it out).

Secondly, what would you consider a sensible measure following 9-11. You seem to know this was the wrong move, so tell me the right one.

I am not saying Iraq is the best move, but, hell, we needed a first move, and that seemed to be it (I consider Iraq-Afghanistan the same move).

The interesting thing to note is that you, who isn't in Iraq, says that the soldiers need to get out. When, it is commonly known that any soldier will tell you that they are doing the right thing. So who are you to say that? How about you read up. Don't try to persuade the world when its not your ass on the line.
Ryan Dawson
Saturday, February 28, 2004 6:44:43 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I don't see how invading Iraq has anything to do capturing with Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden who are widely believed to have been responsible for the attacks on September 11th 2001. So far no conclusive connection has been drawn between the former Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda or anything else that proves they were a threat to the US.
Besides satisfying a bloodlust for Arab lives, I don't see what invading Iraq has to do with the events of September 11th 2001.

PS: I haven't aid anything about US soldiers having to leave. It is quite clear that without the US presence there as a stabilizing force the entire region may dissolve into civil war or anarchy. What I have stated is that the war was started under false pretences (aka for the wrong reasons).
Saturday, February 28, 2004 7:32:50 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Well, if that is all you are arguing, then I don't have any reasonable argument to fight with, since I am in no way connected to the US intelligence. But, on the other hand, I wouldn't be arguing for it -like you, for the same reason.

Obviously there are theories, but there are only a couple of people who really know the complete truth, and it is not their job to tell. You may have a theory why Microsoft did something, but I would guess there are only a couple of people who really know, BillG included.
Ryan Dawson
Saturday, February 28, 2004 11:23:54 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
As to suicide bombing in Israel, check out some of the latest news such as http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4341178/. The problem of suicide bombers in Israel has nothing to do with Saddam.
Sunday, February 29, 2004 1:15:41 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Well, basically here in Israel there was kinda consensus about the war. Saddam bombed our cities in 1991, he did pay to suicide bombers, that's enough. Of course, Saddam was not the only one who supported Hamas and Islamic Jihad, so it's too naive to expect it to stop soon. But anyway, the war was one of the main reasons the end of the intifada has started to loom.

There is big group of people though who didn't support the war because they believe that after the war Israel will be sort of "change" for USA to satisfy the arabs (be forced to give up something to equalize new balance).
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 1:38:07 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
"Besides satisfying a bloodlust for Arab lives, I don't see what invading Iraq has to do with the events of September 11th 2001."

I think you meant to say "Infidel lives.". Plus, the events of 9/11 tells us that we cannot react to madness that is out there. We have to be proactive and remove those threats. The next set of events may be a mushroom cloud somewhere in the USA.

Btw, do you support getting involved in Haiti now? Don't want to upset the local warlords there do we.
Wednesday, March 3, 2004 10:13:47 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Despite disagreements with regard to U.S. actions in Iraq, I think everyone here could agree that the taking appropriate action in response to 9/11 should be a national priority. Given that, how can one not be befuddled by the administration's giving time to such non-issues as gay marriage?
Thursday, March 4, 2004 4:58:43 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
[snip]Given that, how can one not be befuddled by the administration's giving time to such non-issues as gay marriage?[/snip]

Because it's an issue that has risen. The responsibility to take of issues is still there. You may feel that it's a non-issue but there are plenty of others - on both sides of the debate - that don't think it's a non-issue. President Bush believes it's a moral issue:

Goto to biblegateway.com and do a search for homosexual.

There are people who would say that gun control or campaign reform is a non-issue, but there are also people who would disagree with that as well.

Personally I agree with President Bush, marriage is meant to be a holy covenant as defined in the Bible.
Thursday, March 4, 2004 5:42:18 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Could someone make me a list of planned constitutional amendments based on your bible, so that I might adjust my lifestyle now in order to conform to it? I'm thinking also it might be prudent to add an amendment for an "endorsed" bible, to clear up any potential confusion about which one our government will be using for guidance. I'm thinking you can just modify the first amendment in order to do this.

Thursday, March 4, 2004 10:27:19 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Do you think that the government is responsible for maintaining sanctity of holy covenants? If so, then that is certainly where we part ways, as I think that is the responsibility of the church--and I am all for churches making whatever rules they want to on the subject. The government is responsible for supporting and enforcing the civil marriage contract. Government is also responsible for handling things like gun control and campaign reform, which makes them much more relevant as political issues, as well.
Comments are closed.