Just an observation

AzCards21 · February 9th, 2005, 08:10 PM

I find it so interesting that the majority of posters fall into two groups and they seem to me so polar opposite.

Group one is all about winning the war in Iraq. Yes, soldiers will pay the ultimate price but it's worth winning and in the long run things will be better.

Yet, group one doesn't want a single unborn child to pay the ultimate sacrifice of death before they have a chance to be born. An embreyo is a person and should at least become 18 before subjected to death.

Group two is so against war because it cost's our young peoples lives and they take into account the lives of our enemies as well and we shouldn't be attacking and killing people in any manner.

Yet, group two has no problem with aborting a pregnancy since it wasn't a living being. And the fact it wasn't allowed to live at all means it didn't exist.

So, just when is a human's life expendable? We want the ability to abort you when inconvienient and yet if there's a war we want the ability to send you off and die to protect us.

This is totally F-ed up from the word go.

People are people. And they are sons and daughters. What makes you think you have a right to end their existance if you do so after a few weeks of conception or 18 years of existence?

The arguments for both sides are really pissing me off.

CardinalMike · February 9th, 2005, 08:37 PM

Humans are hypocritical. Sometimes you just have to accept that and move on.

Cardinal Mike!!

Mike Olbinski · February 9th, 2005, 09:02 PM

I think there is a HUGE difference between not wanting babies to be aborted, and fighting for our country in which people might die...

To compare the two is just..for lack of a better word...insane !

Mike

Stout · February 9th, 2005, 09:03 PM

Actually, quite a good post. Where is the line drawn?

FischerKing · February 9th, 2005, 09:11 PM

well - in terms of going to war - those people who signed up for the military did so on a volunteer basis - it was their choice to join. and in joining you accept the fact that war may break out during your enlistment therefore you have a very real chance of fighting and even dying for that cause. being a soldier should not be about the GI Bill first - it should be about serving our country and protecting our freedoms first.

shawn

Chaplin · February 9th, 2005, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischerKing

well - in terms of going to war - those people who signed up for the military did so on a volunteer basis - it was their choice to join. and in joining you accept the fact that war may break out during your enlistment therefore you have a very real chance of fighting and even dying for that cause. being a soldier should not be about the GI Bill first - it should be about serving our country and protecting our freedoms first.

shawn

Well put, but the question remains--are they fighting for a cause? At least, in their mind, do they believe they are fighting for a just cause?

Mike Olbinski · February 9th, 2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaplin

Well put, but the question remains--are they fighting for a cause? At least, in their mind, do they believe they are fighting for a just cause?

That isn't really the question...unless I'm missing something...

Mike

Brian in Mesa · February 9th, 2005, 09:26 PM

You don't get to include a list of demands when you sign up for military service. It's not like "I'll fight, but only if I really really think the action is justified."

nidan · February 9th, 2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian in Mesa

You don't get to include a list of demands when you sign up for military service. It's not like "I'll fight, but only if I really really think the action is justified."

No you don't but there is an implied contract that many of us believe has been violated.

People who sign up do so with the understanding that they are serving their country and that the Commander in Chief will use that service in an honourable way.

I, like many others believe that this trust has been violated, now we are threatening Iran.

Neext we will see evidence of WMD in Iran, like as if anybody will believe it.

Mike Olbinski · February 9th, 2005, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

No you don't but there is an implied contract that many of us believe has been violated.

People who sign up do so with the understanding that they are serving their country and that the Commander in Chief will use that service in an honourable way.

I, like many others believe that this trust has been violated, now we are threatening Iran.

Still don't know if this was the point of Mike's post...

Mike

Brian in Mesa · February 9th, 2005, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

...now we are threatening Iran.

We're threatening them? Aren't they the ones saying they WILL develop nukes?

Mike Olbinski · February 9th, 2005, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

No you don't but there is an implied contract that many of us believe has been violated.

People who sign up do so with the understanding that they are serving their country and that the Commander in Chief will use that service in an honourable way.

I, like many others believe that this trust has been violated, now we are threatening Iran.

Neext we will see evidence of WMD in Iran, like as if anybody will believe it.

Isn't it pretty common knowledge that they have or are developing nuclear weapons???

Mike

Brian in Mesa · February 9th, 2005, 09:48 PM

Iran: We're developing nukes !!!

Nidan: Okee dokee, you do that.

krepitch · February 10th, 2005, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chandler Mike

Isn't it pretty common knowledge that they have or are developing nuclear weapons???

Mike

It's common knowledge that they are developing the technology for nuclear energy, but Iran denies that it is developing nuclear weapons.

The problem after what we said about Iraq is that no one will believe us if we say Iran either has nuclear weapons or has the intention of developing nuclear weapons.

FischerKing · February 10th, 2005, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krepitch

It's common knowledge that they are developing the technology for nuclear energy, but Iran denies that it is developing nuclear weapons.

The problem after what we said about Iraq is that no one will believe us if we say Iran either has nuclear weapons or has the intention of developing nuclear weapons.

and how exactly is that a problem...?

shawn