Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

alclarkey wrote: Should it really matter what the rest of the world thinks anyways?
No not if you don't want to have democratic values. By not getting the support necessary an action was performed that no one could prove was wanted. The major reason for the action was not humanitarian, if it was why is there no US presence deposing dictators in all the countries that do not have buckets of oil.

This is the same as abortion, you have to take away one living things rights to give rights to another living thing. The rights of Iraqi's to self determination were taken away to give them liberation, ironic hey?

We may think that they were oppressed, and it is probably even true. Did they want the sort of liberation they got, I think not.

[Ek0nomik]

Selfish_Meme wrote: No not if you don't want to have democratic values. By not getting the support necessary an action was performed that no one could prove was wanted. The major reason for the action was not humanitarian, if it was why is there no US presence deposing dictators in all the countries that do not have buckets of oil.

This is the same as abortion, you have to take away one living things rights to give rights to another living thing. The rights of Iraqi's to self determination were taken away to give them liberation, ironic hey?

We may think that they were oppressed, and it is probably even true. Did they want the sort of liberation they got, I think not.

I wish oil came out of the ground in buckets.

alclarkey You claim that it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, and you use Hitler as your example. Do you really think Adolf was saying to himself: "I really care what all the other countries in the world think?"

[X-Shocker]

Pro-Wwar? War is peace.

Anti-abortion? Need soldiers to fight the wars; thus, creating peace and harmony.

[alclarkey]

Selfish_Meme wrote: alclarkey wrote: Should it really matter what the rest of the world thinks anyways?
No not if you don't want to have democratic values. By not getting the support necessary an action was performed that no one could prove was wanted. The major reason for the action was not humanitarian, if it was why is there no US presence deposing dictators in all the countries that do not have buckets of oil.

Umm... USSR? Vietnam? (although that was a failure, do to a specific group of people who didn't like the war) Besides Iraq had a weak army as is a good tactical country to have free in the WOT.

Selfish_Meme wrote: This is the same as abortion, you have to take away one living things rights to give rights to another living thing. The rights of Iraqi's to self determination were taken away to give them liberation, ironic hey?

:!?: That makes no sense. If we took away their self-determination (which they didn't have under Sadam) we took away their liberty. By giving them liberty we gave them self-determination. And no it is not the same as abortion. With abortion you kill someone to make someone elses life more convenient. With the Iraq war you kill a few people (52,000 is what I think the # is) to save a whole heck of a lot of people (27 million) from all the things that come with a brutal dictatorship, you know like slaughtering your own people, having their women raped etc.

Selfish_Meme wrote: We may think that they were oppressed, and it is probably even true. Did they want the sort of liberation they got, I think not.

You've got to be pretty deluded to think that what they had before was better.

[coolcodemn3]

To answer the first question, I am Pro-waar when needed, and pro-life. Im not for the innocent lives killed in war, but you cant always help that, and without war many more lives would be lost. I am pro-life because its the killing of innocent and does not do any good. supporting a war and being pro-life are two totally different things, there is no contradiction here.

[Subzero]

Abortion = Killing innocent people for the convenience of others.

Just war = Kills guilty people or those enlisted by guilty people to guard the rights of innocent people.

It seems to me that abortion is like an unjust war of aggression: it takes the life of innocent people for no other purpose than to benefit somone else.

[Lumina]

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! ! ! !

First, I reject your terminology. Second, I'd say that those who hope to prevent another 9-1-1 are hoping to prevent the deaths of innocents...just as those who are pro-life hope to protect innocent pre-born lives.

Just MHO. But I must say that I don't know anybody who wants someone whose "ideals are simply determined by where/how they were brought into the world" to suffer. I think that most of those who support this war don't necessarily want anybody to suffer but surely do hope that those who wantonly and indiscriminately take innocent lives to be STOPPED.

[thesheesh]

This question is biased from the start. Here's the reverse:

I'd like to hear from all the pro-baby killers who are against war. Cause that in and of itself is an oxymoron...

Hopefully after the question is flipped you'll see how niave the initial question was.

War is different from abortion. Trying to compare the two doesn't make much sense. The topics are too broad. The claim against abortion is to protect innocent life. The end result and purpose of an abortion is to terminate human life. The purpose of a war is not to kill. Wars are faught for principles. There is a very big difference which makes the comparison difficult and more complex than this broken down argument.