Jp wrote:

How is Iraq better of with Bush? They have nearly no infrastructure left, more Iraqis have been killed by the war then Saddam ever killed, and now they've got civil wars that're going to last for hundreds of years. I'd think they'd be better off without Bush.

There is plenty of infrastructure left. When troops were going in through cities instead of doing the usual destroying of essentials (power, water, etc.) All of it was kept in working order. Troops who had no prior experience were even doing what most people would consider menial jobs as the people who had done them prior were all Saddam supporters and left before troops got there (Plumbers, electricians, etc.)

And sure, Iraqis were killed, The insurgents running around shooting at troops. Sure there were some civilian casualties, but name any substantial offensive military action that didn't have any. There is also the difference from genocide and casualties of war. Under saddam people killed by the hundreds for seemingly no reason, the number of mass-graves (and the number of bodies in them) proove that.

A lot is being done to improve the conditions there aswell. Sure its not going to look like 5th Ave. in Manhatten, but they are all getting things they never had before. Well built 'modern' structures, entertainment/recreation centers, indoor plumbing, where available electricity. How better living conditions is bad for anyone I fail to see.

What it comes down to no matter what your feelings about it now are; Only time will tell. If it works out well, then great. If it doesn't, did it turn out better than what probably would have happened if Saddam were still in power?

Theodis wrote:

With absolute freedom you have no laws or governement and can do whatever you want. Unfortuanntly so can everyone else even if it isn't in your best interest. This is anarchy and anarchy doesn't last long and just ends up transitioning into a dictatorship.

I would have to disagree there. Being able to commit crimes is not a freedom. Absolute freedom does not include the ability to infringe on others freedom, otherwise it would be a paradox.

If I can infringe on your freedom, then you do not truely have that freedom. Therefor true freedom is just as was stated in the post you replied to. People are completely free when they can do anything they want which does not interfere with others ability to do the same. This means that anarchy is not freedom. Anarchy is oppression by the majority.

A good government is one that achieves the right balance that both protects people and gives them enough freedom to pursue their dreams. Which so far has worked out fine for me in the US :P.

Unfortunately, it has not worked out for me in the US. It has been said to death before, but I will say it again... I have the right to go to war and die for my country but not the right to buy a beer in it.

Of course, I have still gotten my hands on beer a few times anyway since there is nothing wrong with my doing so. This encroachment on my freedom is an illegal action of the government, and my ignoring it does not make me a criminal since the action is not truely a crime.

Furthermore, the US government greatly hindered my attempts to make money when I was "under age". I was a kid who wanted to get out and get a job early on and would have done my fair share at work and earned myself an early savings. Unfortunately for me, I had not yet reached the magical age limit at that time at which I am instantly and mysteriously mature enough to work... as if I wasn't already.

Then there are more, lesser things in a list I won't go into.

Of course, I do not agree with the idea that the US is one of the least free countries. It all depends on how you look at it. Some countries in Europe tax you so heavily that you end up giving the government more than you keep for yourself. And for what? "Free" medicine, which I could have boughten for less money than it cost me through taxes. That means that I am then paying for other peoples medicine, the ones who are actually saving on such a plan, which is a huge freedom violation since theft is actually a crime.

Even though I don't think the US is at the bottom of the barrel, I still do think it is worth fixing up before we try and fix up other peoples cultures. Just because we are not the worst that doesn't mean we should ignore improvement, rather we should attempt improvement until we cannot easily think of how to improve any further.

As the famous scripture says, "Take the plank of wood out of your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck of dust out of your brother's eye."

That is one of the things I dislike about Bush. He is not concentrating enough on keeping our freedoms. However, where Bush is more toward neutral than I would like, Kerry would have been more toward the negative. At least Bush is doing something good with the social security. If only people had listened to the libertarians and gone fully private social security already, then we would not be in such a mess.

Jp wrote:

How is Iraq better of with Bush? They have nearly no infrastructure left, more Iraqis have been killed by the war then Saddam ever killed, and now they've got civil wars that're going to last for hundreds of years. I'd think they'd be better off without Bush.

Saddam got about a million people killed. We haven't gotten quite there yet, or even a fraction of the way there.

I'm happy to have good discussion on these subjects, but you really should consider checking some of your facts before throwing them around.

The Bible says sin is sin, and there is no way around it except through the mercy of Jesus Christ. Look, you brought it up - I'm just telling you what it means. The Bible portrays actions as black and white, but people can be forgiven of them.

The thing is, any sin is still a sin, you know that annoying Acronym that was placed on everything from bookbags to keychains? WWJD? Well, Jesus would have forgiven the gay people, he would even of befriended them (he was friends with the man he knew would deliver him to the cross, Judas), the difference is, he wouldn't have embraced their sin like some of the wayward churches are doing now, he would have said it was wrong, just as he said lieing, adultry, murder, etc. were wrong. A true Christian knows that gay people are to be treated kindly, as kind as anyone else, but there can be no comprimise when it comes to the meat and potatos of our faith.

Christians are to stand against the tides of darkness, to work out our faith with fear and trembling, and to uphold our faith despite persecution.

I bring this up because you errantly said "Instead, they're obliging to their religious lobbyists who are going against everything that the Bible's supposed to stand for (I am mainly speaking of "don't hate thy neighbor", or some crap along those lines). "

I don't expect you to agree with me, I expect you to understand me.

Jp wrote:

America has freedom of speech in its constitution, but doesn't give a damn about it.

And Americans infringe the right of people to express their religion just as much as a french law. Anybody coming to school in a turban in America would be beaten to a bloody pulp. Homosexuals would have something very similar happen to them.

You must not be an American. Muslims are generally not beaten bloody in schools, nor are gay people largely discriminated against.

I love how government's inferiority complex's have turned millions into rabid haters of the United States. If any American is asked if they live in an oppressive country they would likely say no. So I don't understand why foreigner's like to spin a tale that we are indeed oppressed and that something must be done.

Also, I love my freedom of speech. It can create some polarization but largely it is beneficial to help address the will of the people.

The point of the right to bear arms is to be able to revolt against a tyrannical government. So say that the current US government became increadibly corrupt, undemocratic, and opressed the people. Say if it was facist, or something, then the people have the right to bear arms to have a revolution and install a new, non-corrupt goverment.

It's the very last member of the US's system of checks and balances.

I refuse to examine evidence! Said the judge.

The people of Austrailia, for the moment, haven't been faced with a major situation where someone with a gun shoots someone, and nobody else can do anything about it, short of calling in the rabid Koala Bears to take them down.

If guns were so prolific in Australia, or had as big a role in life as they do in the States, a different scenario would have unfolded after the banning of firearms.

SuperAntx wrote:

Bush & Son: Taking us to war since 1989.

Bush & Son: protecting my sorry butt since 1989.

A socialist culture.