Political Crossfire Forums

[johnson]

I'd love to hear from some pro-war anti-abortionists because that is a contradiction bound to make for a great thread!

Here, I'll antagonize first:

How can you stick up for a clump of cells and not for a living breathing person who's simply got different poltiical or religious ideals that you? Especially when these ideals were never of their choice, but simply determined from where and to whom they were brought into the world when THEY were still a clump of cells!

Pro-War / Anti-Abortionist / sane ? I say..... I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E! ! ! !

[galba]

johnson wrote: I'd love to hear from some pro-war anti-abortionists because that is a contradiction bound to make for a great thread!

Here, I'll antagonize first:

How can you stick up for a clump of cells and not for a living breathing person who's simply got different poltiical or religious ideals that you? Especially when these ideals were never of their choice, but simply determined from where and to whom they were brought into the world when THEY were still a clump of cells!

Pro-War / Anti-Abortionist / sane ? I say..... I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E! ! ! !

Pro-War? Who wants war?

[Ek0nomik]

galba wrote: johnson wrote: I'd love to hear from some pro-war anti-abortionists because that is a contradiction bound to make for a great thread!

Here, I'll antagonize first:

How can you stick up for a clump of cells and not for a living breathing person who's simply got different poltiical or religious ideals that you? Especially when these ideals were never of their choice, but simply determined from where and to whom they were brought into the world when THEY were still a clump of cells!

Pro-War / Anti-Abortionist / sane ? I say..... I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E! ! ! !

Pro-War? Who wants war?

Some people do support war much more than other people. Galba is right though, I don't think anybody (disregarding radicals) truly wishes for war. I can guarentee you however Galba, that we won't see eye to eye on military issues.

Back to Johnson's topic, I am very strongly Anti-War, but Pro-Choice. I don't really fit in your thread to well I guess. :lol:

[Æ]

I'd say your view is the contradictory one. The common pro-life argument from the right at least says that all life is sacred (e.g., "We must 'protect the innocent'" as is often heard from the right). I suppose this concern also extends to innocents killed in an illegal war. :roll:

Fact of the matter is that warmongers could care less about innocent civilians killed in a war. In fact, the firepower used ensures that there will be a much higher number of casualties among civilians than among the "intended targets." The only thing warmongers are concerned with are how many Americans die. How many Iraqi lives are worth one American life? 5, 10, 25, 50, 100? I think the answer in how this war is being conducted speaks for itself.

[Ek0nomik]

Liberty4All wrote: I'd say your view is the contradictory one. The common pro-life argument from the right at least says that all life is sacred (e.g., "We must 'protect the innocent'" as is often heard from the right). I suppose this concern also extends to innocents killed in an illegal war. :roll:

Fact of the matter is that warmongers could care less about innocent civilians killed in a war. In fact, the firepower used ensures that there will be a much higher number of casualties among civilians than among the "intended targets." The only thing warmongers are concerned with are how many Americans die. How many Iraqi lives are worth one American life? 5, 10, 25, 50, 100? I think the answer in how this war is being conducted speaks for itself.

I know my view is seen as contradictory, but I think it's the correct view.

The view of an entire party could be seen as contradictory too. The support of more military spending, simultaneously protesting pro-life arguments.

[Æ]

Ek0nomik wrote: Liberty4All wrote: I'd say your view is the contradictory one. The common pro-life argument from the right at least says that all life is sacred (e.g., "We must 'protect the innocent'" as is often heard from the right). I suppose this concern also extends to innocents killed in an illegal war. :roll:

Fact of the matter is that warmongers could care less about innocent civilians killed in a war. In fact, the firepower used ensures that there will be a much higher number of casualties among civilians than among the "intended targets." The only thing warmongers are concerned with are how many Americans die. How many Iraqi lives are worth one American life? 5, 10, 25, 50, 100? I think the answer in how this war is being conducted speaks for itself.

I know my view is seen as contradictory, but I think it's the correct view.

The view of an entire party could be seen as contradictory too. The support of more military spending, simultaneously protesting pro-life arguments.
My views are consistent: Murder = Murder

1. Illegalize and criminalize abortion
2. End the death penalty
3. Those who kill innocent civilians in war are murderers and should be treated as such; 'collateral damage' is unacceptable

Of course, the only justifiable war is one fought in self-defense. We have no right telling other countries what to do like the US is the father and the so-called 'rogue' nation is the child.

[galba]

Liberty4All wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Liberty4All wrote: I'd say your view is the contradictory one. The common pro-life argument from the right at least says that all life is sacred (e.g., "We must 'protect the innocent'" as is often heard from the right). I suppose this concern also extends to innocents killed in an illegal war. :roll:

Fact of the matter is that warmongers could care less about innocent civilians killed in a war. In fact, the firepower used ensures that there will be a much higher number of casualties among civilians than among the "intended targets." The only thing warmongers are concerned with are how many Americans die. How many Iraqi lives are worth one American life? 5, 10, 25, 50, 100? I think the answer in how this war is being conducted speaks for itself.

I know my view is seen as contradictory, but I think it's the correct view.

The view of an entire party could be seen as contradictory too. The support of more military spending, simultaneously protesting pro-life arguments.
My views are consistent: Murder = Murder

1. Illegalize and criminalize abortion
2. End the death penalty
3. Those who kill innocent civilians in war are murderers and should be treated as such; 'collateral damage' is unacceptable

Of course, the only justifiable war is one fought in self-defense. We have no right telling other countries what to do like the US is the father and the so-called 'rogue' nation is the child.

Should we have intervened in Rwanda during the genocide?

[fakeplasticpayden]

johnson wrote: I'd love to hear from some pro-war anti-abortionists because that is a contradiction bound to make for a great thread!

Here, I'll antagonize first:

How can you stick up for a clump of cells and not for a living breathing person who's simply got different poltiical or religious ideals that you? Especially when these ideals were never of their choice, but simply determined from where and to whom they were brought into the world when THEY were still a clump of cells!

Pro-War / Anti-Abortionist / sane ? I say..... I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E! ! ! !

payden wrote: ok, this is completely ridiculous, i myself am a anti abortionist, pro war. my first point is "choice" people choose to go to war, there is no draft. the child on the other hand, does not get a choice, because it is not fully developed. now you can call it a lump of cells, but the people fighting in iraq right now were also once a lump of cells. and my second point is the fact that if you are anti war, you are looking through a very tunnel vision point of view, what do you expect us to do? we get attacked and lose hundreds of innocent lives. are you seriously telling me that we should just forget about this?? i mean whats to happen if we dont retaliate. now i am not saying that revenge is always justified, i am saying that if we didnt do anythign about it, iraq and every other counrty will walk all over us, we need to let them know who we are, and that we dont like to sit back and watch are country fall apart becasue some terrorists like to commit suicide into the side of our historical buildings. id like to hear back from you soon.

[johnson]

fakeplasticpayden wrote: johnson wrote: I'd love to hear from some pro-war anti-abortionists because that is a contradiction bound to make for a great thread!

Here, I'll antagonize first:

How can you stick up for a clump of cells and not for a living breathing person who's simply got different poltiical or religious ideals that you? Especially when these ideals were never of their choice, but simply determined from where and to whom they were brought into the world when THEY were still a clump of cells!

Pro-War / Anti-Abortionist / sane ? I say..... I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E! ! ! !

payden wrote: ok, this is completely ridiculous, i myself am a anti abortionist, pro war. my first point is "choice" people choose to go to war, there is no draft. the child on the other hand, does not get a choice, because it is not fully developed. now you can call it a lump of cells, but the people fighting in iraq right now were also once a lump of cells. and my second point is the fact that if you are anti war, you are looking through a very tunnel vision point of view, what do you expect us to do? we get attacked and lose hundreds of innocent lives. are you seriously telling me that we should just forget about this?? i mean whats to happen if we dont retaliate. now i am not saying that revenge is always justified, i am saying that if we didnt do anythign about it, iraq and every other counrty will walk all over us, we need to let them know who we are, and that we dont like to sit back and watch are country fall apart becasue some terrorists like to commit suicide into the side of our historical buildings. id like to hear back from you soon.


HAHAHAHAHAHA... thats funny! Sure, I'm sure every poor sole in Iraq made the conscience choice to go to war. No,, in Iraq the American soldiers are the abortionists, because iraqis did not ask for a war.

Unless of course you are one of the well educated who still think Saddam was flying the planes remote control from Baghdad!

By the way, women feel the same way as your country about 'walking all over them' and so they have the same right to hunt down anti-abortionists and kill them?

:lol:

[alclarkey]

johnson wrote: fakeplasticpayden wrote: johnson wrote: I'd love to hear from some pro-war anti-abortionists because that is a contradiction bound to make for a great thread!

Here, I'll antagonize first:

How can you stick up for a clump of cells and not for a living breathing person who's simply got different poltiical or religious ideals that you? Especially when these ideals were never of their choice, but simply determined from where and to whom they were brought into the world when THEY were still a clump of cells!

Pro-War / Anti-Abortionist / sane ? I say..... I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E! ! ! !

payden wrote: ok, this is completely ridiculous, i myself am a anti abortionist, pro war. my first point is "choice" people choose to go to war, there is no draft. the child on the other hand, does not get a choice, because it is not fully developed. now you can call it a lump of cells, but the people fighting in iraq right now were also once a lump of cells. and my second point is the fact that if you are anti war, you are looking through a very tunnel vision point of view, what do you expect us to do? we get attacked and lose hundreds of innocent lives. are you seriously telling me that we should just forget about this?? i mean whats to happen if we dont retaliate. now i am not saying that revenge is always justified, i am saying that if we didnt do anythign about it, iraq and every other counrty will walk all over us, we need to let them know who we are, and that we dont like to sit back and watch are country fall apart becasue some terrorists like to commit suicide into the side of our historical buildings. id like to hear back from you soon.


HAHAHAHAHAHA... thats funny! Sure, I'm sure every poor sole in Iraq made the conscience choice to go to war. No,, in Iraq the American soldiers are the abortionists, because iraqis did not ask for a war.

Unless of course you are one of the well educated who still think Saddam was flying the planes remote control from Baghdad!

By the way, women feel the same way as your country about 'walking all over them' and so they have the same right to hunt down anti-abortionists and kill them?

:lol:

So let me get this straight, American soldiers are abortionists because they (A) liberated a people from a brutal dicator and (B) defend the lives of innocents in Iraq from insurgents and terrorists? Right?
:rofl:

Lets try this scenario:

There is an abortion clinic being mobbed by militant anti-abortion protesters, some of whom are bent on killing abortion doctors. The police are called in to deal with the situation when suddenly a bunch of them pulls knives and start running at the clinic, the police have no choice but to shoot them to save the lives of the abortion doctors, are the police now murders or abortionists as you say?

[johnson]

alclarkey wrote: johnson wrote: fakeplasticpayden wrote: johnson wrote: I'd love to hear from some pro-war anti-abortionists because that is a contradiction bound to make for a great thread!

Here, I'll antagonize first:

How can you stick up for a clump of cells and not for a living breathing person who's simply got different poltiical or religious ideals that you? Especially when these ideals were never of their choice, but simply determined from where and to whom they were brought into the world when THEY were still a clump of cells!

Pro-War / Anti-Abortionist / sane ? I say..... I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E! ! ! !

payden wrote: ok, this is completely ridiculous, i myself am a anti abortionist, pro war. my first point is "choice" people choose to go to war, there is no draft. the child on the other hand, does not get a choice, because it is not fully developed. now you can call it a lump of cells, but the people fighting in iraq right now were also once a lump of cells. and my second point is the fact that if you are anti war, you are looking through a very tunnel vision point of view, what do you expect us to do? we get attacked and lose hundreds of innocent lives. are you seriously telling me that we should just forget about this?? i mean whats to happen if we dont retaliate. now i am not saying that revenge is always justified, i am saying that if we didnt do anythign about it, iraq and every other counrty will walk all over us, we need to let them know who we are, and that we dont like to sit back and watch are country fall apart becasue some terrorists like to commit suicide into the side of our historical buildings. id like to hear back from you soon.


HAHAHAHAHAHA... thats funny! Sure, I'm sure every poor sole in Iraq made the conscience choice to go to war. No,, in Iraq the American soldiers are the abortionists, because iraqis did not ask for a war.

Unless of course you are one of the well educated who still think Saddam was flying the planes remote control from Baghdad!

By the way, women feel the same way as your country about 'walking all over them' and so they have the same right to hunt down anti-abortionists and kill them?

:lol:

So let me get this straight, American soldiers are abortionists because they (A) liberated a people from a brutal dicator and (B) defend the lives of innocents in Iraq from insurgents and terrorists? Right?


Bingo. Exactly right!

Firstly, wake up, American soldiers have not liberated anyone. (duhh...oh yeah)

But more importantly, they were not asked by anyone to even TRY to liberate the iraqis. In fact the rest of the world told the American soldiers what they were about to do was 100% illegal.

You are looking at the world should America-colored glasses, to many many many countries Bush is a dictator worse than Saddam, and Americans in most people's opinions DO need saving from his tyranny.

After all, bush has killed over 2,000 of his own people thus far in this war and has shown no remorse nor intention to stop! So? Does that give China the right to invade the USA killing 1000's of people in the process?

And if it does, do you think we could ever be so lucky as to have them start in South Dakota!?

:lol:

[alclarkey]

johnson wrote:

Bingo. Exactly right!

Firstly, wake up, American soldiers have not liberated anyone. (duhh...oh yeah)

Saddam Hussein has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, he had palaces and statues in his honor erected all over Iraq while his people starved. American soldiers have liberated the Iraqi people

johnson wrote: But more importantly, they were not asked by anyone to even TRY to liberate the iraqis. In fact the rest of the world told the American soldiers what they were about to do was 100% illegal.

There was nothing illegal about what they were doing. Sadam violated UN resolution after UN resolution, and under UN rules the US had complete justification for the action we took.

johnson wrote: You are looking at the world should America-colored glasses, to many many many countries Bush is a dictator worse than Saddam, and Americans in most people's opinions DO need saving from his tyranny.

After all, bush has killed over 2,000 of his own people thus far in this war and has shown no remorse nor intention to stop! So? Does that give China the right to invade the USA killing 1000's of people in the process?

Wait a minute. First of the soldiers are abortionists or murderers, now they are the victims? Which is it?

Tell me how Bush is a dictator please, I'm dying to hear what you have to say.

[johnson]

Bush is a dictator because he'd imprison you and your family if you were between he and the presidency and he thought he could get away with it.

Bush is a dictator because he has people who protest at his events arrested and thrown in jail and bans protests and opposition whenever possible.

Bush is a dictator because a majority of his country and the rest of the world told him outright it was illegal, yet he did and did so without any regard for the country he was invading. Your opinion on what saddam was doing and why is as valid as my own opinion on how tiger woods could be a better golfer. I'm not a pro-golfer and you are not a world leader. If vermont decided to join canada, bush would attack the state just like saddam did to the kurds.

Bush is a dictator because he wants every soldier in the world to stand trial for war crimes, yet his own military should be exempt from any possible world court, even though they torture people.

Bush is a dictator because he was going to use his power of veto to push through a deal that his own country including even his own party did not want.

Bush is a dictator because he uses fear to control his people rather than leadership skills, and with that fear he is leading them to death and destruction rather than prosperity and security.

Bush is a dictator simply because has proven he would kill you in a second if he thought he'd gain poltiically.

A -split- second!

[alclarkey]

johnson wrote: Bush is a dictator because he'd imprison you and your family if you were between he and the presidency and he thought he could get away with it.

Bush is a dictator because he has people who protest at his events arrested and thrown in jail and bans protests and opposition whenever possible.

Bush is a dictator because a majority of his country and the rest of the world told him outright it was illegal, yet he did and did so without any regard for the country he was invading. Your opinion on what saddam was doing and why is as valid as my own opinion on how tiger woods could be a better golfer. I'm not a pro-golfer and you are not a world leader. If vermont decided to join canada, bush would attack the state just like saddam did to the kurds.

Bush is a dictator because he wants every soldier in the world to stand trial for war crimes, yet his own military should be exempt from any possible world court, even though they torture people.

Bush is a dictator because he was going to use his power of veto to push through a deal that his own country including even his own party did not want.

Bush is a dictator because he uses fear to control his people rather than leadership skills, and with that fear he is leading them to death and destruction rather than prosperity and security.

Bush is a dictator simply because has proven he would kill you in a second if he thought he'd gain poltiically.

A -split- second!

One word: Proof?

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

turning back abortion to wartime politics. I'm just glad that my guy won the election and that some of the candidates that knuckleheads support did not.

I am
anti-abortion - live up to the consequences of your actions like a moral society should.
pro-war -as long as we're there, we have to finish the job
pro-death penalty - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Hope Tookie Williams thinks it's hot down there but I'm not the judge of that one thankfully

[fakeplasticpayden]

HAHAHAHAHAHA... thats funny! Sure, I'm sure every poor sole in Iraq made the conscience choice to go to war. No,, in Iraq the American soldiers are the abortionists, because iraqis did not ask for a war.

Unless of course you are one of the well educated who still think Saddam was flying the planes remote control from Baghdad!

By the way, women feel the same way as your country about 'walking all over them' and so they have the same right to hunt down anti-abortionists and kill them?

:lol:[/quote]

payden wrote: for one thing, we are fighting for the iraqis to be a democratic government, it is the sunnis and the shi'ites doing all the fighting, and i was talking about americans that choose to go to war, and even if they didnt choose to go to war, are you telling me that it is justified to kill a baby just because it is not just to kill a "human being" you had no point in your post.

[Selfish_Meme]

alclarkey wrote: johnson wrote: Firstly, wake up, American soldiers have not liberated anyone. (duhh...oh yeah)
Saddam Hussein has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, he had palaces and statues in his honor erected all over Iraq while his people starved. American soldiers have liberated the Iraqi people
When you change someones conditions against their wishes it is not liberation. There is no proof that the majority of the Iraqi people wanted the invasion.
alclarkey wrote: johnson wrote: But more importantly, they were not asked by anyone to even TRY to liberate the iraqis. In fact the rest of the world told the American soldiers what they were about to do was 100% illegal.
There was nothing illegal about what they were doing. Sadam violated UN resolution after UN resolution, and under UN rules the US had complete justification for the action we took.
There was no backing by the UN for the coalitions actions. Thats like saying I can kill a person because they are a convicted murderer. The resolutions were UN resolutions not US or UK resolutions.

[alclarkey]

Selfish_Meme wrote: alclarkey wrote: johnson wrote: Firstly, wake up, American soldiers have not liberated anyone. (duhh...oh yeah)
Saddam Hussein has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, he had palaces and statues in his honor erected all over Iraq while his people starved. American soldiers have liberated the Iraqi people
When you change someones conditions against their wishes it is not liberation.

Why don't you tell this person that:

Or the 8 million people who voted for their new constitution. Or maybe you could tell that to our soldiers who are adored by the Iraqi people.

Selfish_Meme wrote: There is no proof that the majority of the Iraqi people wanted the invasin.

The Kurds certainly wanted it, and you are right there is no proof, however you should consider how many Iraqi people would like to Sadam back in power. I'm willing to bet you won't find many.


Selfish_Meme wrote: alclarkey wrote: johnson wrote: But more importantly, they were not asked by anyone to even TRY to liberate the iraqis. In fact the rest of the world told the American soldiers what they were about to do was 100% illegal.
There was nothing illegal about what they were doing. Sadam violated UN resolution after UN resolution, and under UN rules the US had complete justification for the action we took.
There was no backing by the UN for the coalitions actions. Thats like saying I can kill a person because they are a convicted murderer. The resolutions were UN resolutions not US or UK resolutions.

Under UN law the US did have the right to take the actions it took. If a country defies UN resolutions any other country that is part of the UN may take corrective action.

[Ek0nomik]

Chocolate_New_Orleans wrote: anti-abortion - live up to the consequences of your actions like a moral society should.

Yes, that raped women should have that child! What the f**k was she thinking? She should be forced to have a child which isn't hers.

Chocolate_New_Orleans wrote: pro-war -as long as we're there, we have to finish the job

That's the best reasoning I have ever heard to fight a war. "Might as F**K**' well, we're already there". Nicely put.

Chocolate_New_Orleans wrote: pro-death penalty - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Hope Tookie Williams thinks it's hot down there but I'm not the judge of that one thankfully

Yeah, I think our government should put its own citizens to death. That's the "moral" thing for our society to do.

Alcarkey: Just to clarify: About 15.5 million of Iraq's 26 million people were registered to vote. Officials estimated about 10 million of the 15 million registered voters participated in the elections for a 275-seat parliament called the Council of Representatives.

I don't think that absolutely no good can be done in Iraq. Of course good things can be done. And of course a country may take action even if other countries don't agree. But you need to ask yourself what is the purpose of this unified gathering of shared interests, if the actions taken by any of the countries aren't supported by the others? It defeats the purpose. So even referring to the UN really doesn't justify your argument. Sure, a country maybe should ignore what other countries believe. However, relating back to the UN, in which its purpose is to get a global viewpoint, just defeats the statement.

[alclarkey]

Ek0nomik wrote: Alcarkey: Just to clarify: About 15.5 million of Iraq's 26 million people were registered to vote. Officials estimated about 10 million of the 15 million registered voters participated in the elections for a 275-seat parliament called the Council of Representatives.

I don't think that absolutely no good can be done in Iraq. Of course good things can be done. And of course a country may take action even if other countries don't agree. But you need to ask yourself what is the purpose of this unified gathering of shared interests, if the actions taken by any of the countries aren't supported by the others? It defeats the purpose. So even referring to the UN really doesn't justify your argument. Sure, a country maybe should ignore what other countries believe. However, relating back to the UN, in which its purpose is to get a global viewpoint, just defeats the statement.

Should it really matter what the rest of the world thinks anyways? What of the rest of world was run by Hitler and set about the murder of Jews should we just stand by and watch because its what the rest of the world believes? We did take an action in Iraq because we believed it the right thing to do for the Iraqi people and the right thing to do by setting up a democracy in the center of the ME. Also alot of those countries were benefiting hansomely from Sadams oil-for-food program, kind of shoots their credibility on what the US should do, to s**t.