This is where we disagree, I suppose. I think Afghanistan DID attack us because the Taliban government harbored the Al Qaida terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 (and the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings) and they refused to give them up, thus demonstrating complicity. And everybody, simply everybody has conceded that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, harbored no Al Qaida cells, and sponsored no terrorist attacks upon the US. Even George Bush has stated this. I'm 100% supportive of the war on terror, I just think the Iraqi misadventure is a distraction from it. Osama is still out there and we seem to have forgotten him.
To kill the innocent is murder. If someone truely believes that capital punishment is wrong based on religion, I can respect that. Most opponents of the death penalty believe that way simply because they don't want accountability for ones actions. Most are the same people that want certain drugs made legal and shorter prison sentences for dangerous criminals. But, if someone opposes it based from their heart, I have no problem with that. I can argue against it though. I like the three strikes law myself. I would take it one step further. Three felony convictions and no life in prison where the tax payer has to support you until the day you die. I would put them to death. I'd be willing to bet that would cut way down on crime in this country. I agree that we should be more expedient with the punishment. It's that whole burden on the tax payer thing that I take issue with, you know. :hihi:
'Murder' means to 'kill unlawfully' (dictionary.com). So if capital punishment is legal, then sure, it's not muder. And the same line of reasoning could be applied to abortion.
OK, Salty thinks that third-world countries in Africa are full of self destructive, under-educated little bastards who hate each other and we should just let them kill each other and work out their own problems without spending American lives or dollars. Yet, third-world countries in the Middle East that are full of self destructive, under-educated little bastards who hate each other are somehow our responsibility to turn into a Jeffersonian democracy. Interestingly he calls this "leave them to fight it out" policy natural selection even though he is almost certainly opposed to evolution, in which natural selection is the prime tenet. The point is that it is hard to take any position without there being some hypocracy involved. Conservatives and liberals alike.
You get to wrapped up in names. The terrorist that were in Iraq and using Iraq as a training ground may not have been directly funded by the Taliban and may not have been labeled as Al Qaida, but they shared the same ideals. Terrorist come in many colors and nationalities. Sadam was a terrorist. His continued leadership of the nation of Iraq posed a threat to us and to the safety of others in the region. If nothing else, we have gained a toe hold in the middle east that will allow us to go after possibly even more dangerous regimes. Iran, Syria,........ Even though Sadam was not a "radical islamic" the government that he maintained was formed around those beliefs. He did this in order to gain and maintain power. The war on terror is against islam. That is the connection for Iraq.
Notice I said unless they pose a threat to our safety or financial well being. There is a difference. The natural selection comparison was intended to be humorous. Don't forget "with an AK-47". Of couse I don't believe in the theory of evolution.
Thanks Sis, I ain't the worlds best typist. However I do know how to capitalize and punctuate. And I do understand subject/verb agreement and sentence fragments. :hihi:
