Political Crossfire Forums

LDS Patriot · Joined: 05 Jan 2006 Posts: 200

I believe that many American’s are obsessed with rights (legal claim), and could care less about doing what is right (moral truth).

Bush’s position of abortion is more right (moral truth) than those who demand status quo or expanded abortion rights (legal claim). This is one of many reasons I would call myself a Bush supporter. Like Bush, I believe that “every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient.”

Well said, Bush!

Bush to anti-abortion activists: 'We will prevail'
REUTERS
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday told opponents of abortion their views would eventually prevail and urged them to work to convince more Americans of "the rightness of our cause."
…"We, of course, seek common ground where possible," he said. "We're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause, and this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principles -- history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail."
…"You believe as I do that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient," Bush told the anti-abortion marchers.

Elder Russell M. Nelson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, LDS Church, on abortion:
“It is a war on the defenseless—and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn… What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a critically ill twelve-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of another life twelve weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before birth… But what impropriety could now legalize that which has been forbidden by the laws of God from the dawn of time? What twisted reasoning has transformed mythical concepts into contorted slogans assenting to a practice which is consummately wrong… Another contention raised is that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To a certain extent this is true for all of us. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And then we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. Those considering abortion have already exercised certain choices…To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action…So it is with those who would tamper with the God-given power of procreation. They are free to think and plan otherwise, but their choice is sealed by action…The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy” applies literally only to the woman. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality… It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science… Scripture declares that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11.) Abortion sheds that innocent blood.”
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.html

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10772

LDS Patriot wrote: I believe that many American’s are obsessed with rights (legal claim), and could care less about doing what is right (moral truth).

Bush’s position of abortion is more right (moral truth) than those who demand status quo or expanded abortion rights (legal claim). This is one of many reasons I would call myself a Bush supporter. Like Bush, I believe that “every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient.”

Well said, Bush!

Bush to anti-abortion activists: 'We will prevail'
REUTERS
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday told opponents of abortion their views would eventually prevail and urged them to work to convince more Americans of "the rightness of our cause."
…"We, of course, seek common ground where possible," he said. "We're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause, and this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principles -- history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail."
…"You believe as I do that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient," Bush told the anti-abortion marchers.

Elder Russell M. Nelson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, LDS Church, on abortion:
“It is a war on the defenseless—and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn… What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a critically ill twelve-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of another life twelve weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before birth… But what impropriety could now legalize that which has been forbidden by the laws of God from the dawn of time? What twisted reasoning has transformed mythical concepts into contorted slogans assenting to a practice which is consummately wrong… Another contention raised is that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To a certain extent this is true for all of us. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And then we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. Those considering abortion have already exercised certain choices…To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action…So it is with those who would tamper with the God-given power of procreation. They are free to think and plan otherwise, but their choice is sealed by action…The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy” applies literally only to the woman. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality… It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science… Scripture declares that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11.) Abortion sheds that innocent blood.”
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.html

What if one's morals differ from yours? Whose morals are more "right"?

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7181 Location: Colorado

Ameriman wrote: What if one's morals differ from yours? Whose morals are more "right"?

The one with the bigger gun.

This is why in the realm of government, we should stick to rights.

Ameriman · Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 10772

ikari wrote: Ameriman wrote: What if one's morals differ from yours? Whose morals are more "right"?

The one with the bigger gun.

This is why in the realm of government, we should stick to rights.

eh? That hasn't been the case in America for the last 150 years...

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

LDS Patriot wrote: I believe that many American’s are obsessed with rights (legal claim), and could care less about doing what is right (moral truth).

I would agree. This is especially vile when they make up new "rights" out of whole cloth when it suits them.

LDS Patriot wrote: Bush’s position of abortion is more right (moral truth) than those who demand status quo or expanded abortion rights (legal claim).

I think he phrases it in moral language, but I do not think he has clear vision of this moral truth. He disregards the role of societal and parental responsibility in bearing, keeping, and raising a child, and like the majority of people who invoke it, I believe he is inconsistent about the supposedly universal "value of human life".

Elder Russel M. Nelson wrote: What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development?

The same "inconsistency" that allows us to grieve for our own dead, but celebrate the deaths of our enemies. We grieve only for the loss of those lives which we have personally valued and loved; I think this is only proper, as death is inevitable and millions of people we have never known die every day.

Should we spend our entire lives in mourning for people we have never met?

LDS Patriot · Joined: 05 Jan 2006 Posts: 200

Ameriman wrote: LDS Patriot wrote: I believe that many American’s are obsessed with rights (legal claim), and could care less about doing what is right (moral truth).

Bush’s position of abortion is more right (moral truth) than those who demand status quo or expanded abortion rights (legal claim). This is one of many reasons I would call myself a Bush supporter. Like Bush, I believe that “every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient."

Well said, Bush!

Bush to anti-abortion activists: 'We will prevail'
REUTERS
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday told opponents of abortion their views would eventually prevail and urged them to work to convince more Americans of "the rightness of our cause."
…"We, of course, seek common ground where possible," he said. "We're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause, and this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principles -- history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail."
…"You believe as I do that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient," Bush told the anti-abortion marchers.

Elder Russell M. Nelson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, LDS Church, on abortion:
“It is a war on the defenseless—and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn… What sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a critically ill twelve-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of another life twelve weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before birth… But what impropriety could now legalize that which has been forbidden by the laws of God from the dawn of time? What twisted reasoning has transformed mythical concepts into contorted slogans assenting to a practice which is consummately wrong… Another contention raised is that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To a certain extent this is true for all of us. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And then we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. Those considering abortion have already exercised certain choices…To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action…So it is with those who would tamper with the God-given power of procreation. They are free to think and plan otherwise, but their choice is sealed by action…The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy" applies literally only to the woman. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality… It is not a question of when “meaningful life" begins or when the spirit “quickens" the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science… Scripture declares that the “life of the flesh is in the blood." (Lev. 17:11.) Abortion sheds that innocent blood."
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.html

What if one's morals differ from yours? Whose morals are more "right"?

Consider the morality/principles built into the Dec. of Independence and the US Constitution (US Con). Is that a good place to find common ground or what is moral and what is not?

Life...liberty...pursuit of happiness...now how is a dead baby going to be able to do any of that?

What is more, the US Supreme Court had no constitutional authority to rule as they did on R v. W. Why? The US Con. left that for the each state to decide upon issue like that; that’s federalism which is built into the constitution. Hence, R v. W is unconstitutional, therefore bad law.

Some people (not saying you) react angrily at the thought of "religious dogma laying the ground rules." Fine. But it's OK for secularist or activist judges to "laying the ground rules" or make up rules that simply never existed.

Supporting R v. W is no different than allowing "religious dogma laying the ground rules." Those who condemn religion as a base for morality but support secularist or activist judges have a double standard.

Joost · Joined: 25 Jan 2006 Posts: 35

Whart exactly is life? Does it mean that the Constitution protects the life of all animals and plants? This can hardly be the case, since one can start a farm and start butchering pigs any time they want. Does it defend the lifes of citizens in an absolute sense? Nope; the right to live can be denied when certain citizens have, according to the judicial system, commited specific crimes. A more specified definition of life is needed.
What, sets human life apart from animals? Is it the ability to think? And what it "thinking"? Does it mean that people that are challenged on the IQ level have no, or less right to live (for example, in an IQ test, a chimpansee scored higher than a dutch celebrity)? Even whjile setting thius aside, when does the "think" process start? Could it be applied to human foetuses with a brain smaller than that of a goldfish?

I'm sorry I don't have all the answers, but I hope someone else can provide them.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:23 am Post subject:

All Morals are subjective, thats why you cannot and must not legislate on their basis.

jamesp · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 3744

I have the RIGHT to disagree..

Legislate that....

Eichen · Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 1045 Location: Tampa, FL

Your tirade against "rights" was lame. Bad move. It would be a far better argument to support those rights, including those of an unborn child.

Once you stated on "rights" vs. subjective morality, it fell apart.

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

Joost wrote: Whart exactly is life? Does it mean that the Constitution protects the life of all animals and plants? This can hardly be the case, since one can start a farm and start butchering pigs any time they want. Does it defend the lifes of citizens in an absolute sense? Nope; the right to live can be denied when certain citizens have, according to the judicial system, commited specific crimes. A more specified definition of life is needed.
What, sets human life apart from animals? Is it the ability to think? And what it "thinking"? Does it mean that people that are challenged on the IQ level have no, or less right to live (for example, in an IQ test, a chimpansee scored higher than a dutch celebrity)? Even whjile setting thius aside, when does the "think" process start? Could it be applied to human foetuses with a brain smaller than that of a goldfish?

I'm sorry I don't have all the answers, but I hope someone else can provide them.

What sets human life apart from animals? Simple only humans have the abillity to ask or answer that question.
The right to life can not be taken away, it can only be given away by ones actions. A fetus is innocent, tookie williams wasn't, to compare the two is facetious.

The AntiChrist · Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 2240 Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Bush's Iraq war: neither morally right or legal.

"Shock and Awe": neither morally right or legal.

Bush thinks life is sacred?! :rotf:

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

The AntiChrist wrote: Bush's Iraq war: neither morally right or legal.
Both legal, as the US declared war, and moral, as we freed millions from an oopressive dicatator.

Quote:
"Shock and Awe": neither morally right or legal.

Legal under the rules of war, moral, in that it prevented a better defense of Bagdhad therby preventing more casualities on both sides.
Quote:
Bush thinks life is sacred?! :rotf:
Yes he does, thats why hes willing to fight for peoples right to live free.

The AntiChrist · Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 2240 Location: Cleveland, Ohio

mwm1331 wrote: Both legal, as the US declared war, and moral, as we freed millions from an oopressive dicatator. Legal under the rules of war, moral, in that it prevented a better defense of Bagdhad therby preventing more casualities on both sides.

I don't care what kind of spin you put on it: this war is not morally right.

This war is illegal: Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

mwm1331 wrote: Yes he does, thats why hes willing to fight for peoples right to live free.

Since when is that Bush's job? Was that our reason for pre-emptive war from the beginning? And do you honestly believe Bush gives a sh!t about Iraqis?

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

The AntiChrist wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Both legal, as the US declared war, and moral, as we freed millions from an oopressive dicatator. Legal under the rules of war, moral, in that it prevented a better defense of Bagdhad therby preventing more casualities on both sides.

I don't care what kind of spin you put on it: this war is not morally right.

This war is illegal: Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

mwm1331 wrote: Yes he does, thats why hes willing to fight for peoples right to live free.

Since when is that Bush's job? Was that our reason for pre-emptive war from the beginning? And do you honestly believe Bush gives a sh!t about Iraqis?

We did find WMD's in Iraq, Chemical weapons, Not as much as we thought he had, but enough. SO yes It was legal, and yes I do think Bush gives a s**t about the Iraqi's

Dookiestix · Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: Right v. Rights

ikari wrote: Ameriman wrote: What if one's morals differ from yours? Whose morals are more "right"?

The one with the bigger gun.

This is why in the realm of government, we should stick to rights.
But who has the bigger gun?

The issue of abortion is certainly going to take center stage with the presumed Alito confirmation and the serious possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. We will then have entire states which will ban abortion altogether, EVEN in the case of the health of the mother and/or rape, because there is also a contingency of anti-abortion proponents who see it this way, and vote Republican.

I always prescribed to what Bill Clinton said in that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. It comes down to the fundamental rights of a woman to decide what she can do with her own body. Corporate interests are pouring tons of money into drugs that enhance male performance, and yet sex education in many schools is completely absent of birth control. That's just absurd. Some only teach abstinence, which is a joke because these kid's hormones are raging come puberty, and in no way are they going to listen to any line of reasoning other than what their private parts are telling them. It is an intrinsic part of the human condition.

Therefore, we now have an affront who's rhetoric approaches declarations of war on certain American's moralities. I'm glad I live in a region which doesn't have to worry about this, but there are other states which could head back into the stone age, and we may see women once again risking their lives in attempting to abort a fetus without the proper funding for sex eduction and/or health care, both of which are falling by the wayside in certain parts of the country.

These religious zealots forget that there are many other Americans with different viewpoints living in the same country. We are one big great melting pot, and our Constitution implicitly states that one's religion cannot get into our political process in Washington. But this is exactly what is happening, and this is what Bush has always pushed for in firing up the GOP's religious base. And abortion is a key issue which Bush and the GOP can use in this regard.

Alito could very well lead the way as the decisive vote on the USSC.

Gremlin · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 7869 Location: On the Run.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: All Morals are subjective, thats why you cannot and must not legislate on their basis.
jamesp wrote: I have the RIGHT to disagree..

Legislate that....

:tu:

The AntiChrist · Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 2240 Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Dookiestix wrote: ikari wrote: Ameriman wrote: What if one's morals differ from yours? Whose morals are more "right"?

The one with the bigger gun.

This is why in the realm of government, we should stick to rights.
But who has the bigger gun?

The issue of abortion is certainly going to take center stage with the presumed Alito confirmation and the serious possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. We will then have entire states which will ban abortion altogether, EVEN in the case of the health of the mother and/or rape, because there is also a contingency of anti-abortion proponents who see it this way, and vote Republican.

I always prescribed to what Bill Clinton said in that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. It comes down to the fundamental rights of a woman to decide what she can do with her own body. Corporate interests are pouring tons of money into drugs that enhance male performance, and yet sex education in many schools is completely absent of birth control. That's just absurd. Some only teach abstinence, which is a joke because these kid's hormones are raging come puberty, and in no way are they going to listen to any line of reasoning other than what their private parts are telling them. It is an intrinsic part of the human condition.

Therefore, we now have an affront who's rhetoric approaches declarations of war on certain American's moralities. I'm glad I live in a region which doesn't have to worry about this, but there are other states which could head back into the stone age, and we may see women once again risking their lives in attempting to abort a fetus without the proper funding for sex eduction and/or health care, both of which are falling by the wayside in certain parts of the country.

These religious zealots forget that there are many other Americans with different viewpoints living in the same country. We are one big great melting pot, and our Constitution implicitly states that one's religion cannot get into our political process in Washington. But this is exactly what is happening, and this is what Bush has always pushed for in firing up the GOP's religious base. And abortion is a key issue which Bush and the GOP can use in this regard.

Alito could very well lead the way as the decisive vote on the USSC.

:clap: Nice post!

Joost · Joined: 25 Jan 2006 Posts: 35

mwm1331 wrote: What sets human life apart from animals? Simple only humans have the abillity to ask or answer that question.
The right to life can not be taken away, it can only be given away by ones actions. A fetus is innocent, tookie williams wasn't, to compare the two is facetious.

Fetuses can't ask that question. So can't babies. People in coma can't. Do they have the right to live, and if so, why?

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7181 Location: Colorado

mwm1331 wrote:
Both legal, as the US declared war, and moral, as we freed millions from an oopressive dicatator.

There is no formal declaration of war from Congress, we did not declare war.

mwm1331 wrote: Yes he does, thats why hes willing to fight for peoples right to live free.

It's not his fight, the Constitution does not charge the government with the ability to "spread democracy".