I was thinking that Cheney was a senator during the Clinton administration, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry.

However, this piece by John Perry Barlow talking a lot about what I believe that paper shows, before that paper came to light. He claims to have insights into Cheney's thought processes based on their work together and against each other.

not directed to you, faulk, or anyone else...

Saddam Hussein pledged his hatred for the US. We need to fricking kill the son of a bitch. If he, and many muslim terrorists, had the chance to kill you or I, they would gladly do so. We're not looking for trouble, but trouble came to us, and I'm glad we're ready to fight. Fuck Saddam and fuck islam, we're gonna win this stupid jihad. And I'm not gonna be all politically correct and pretend like it's not just muslims trying to blow up America and Israel. You know that if there were white chistian terrorists then nobody would hesitate to say fuck christianity, but because the minority muslims are involved, we have to tip toe around it to make sure we're not racists. Well I don't give a damn, so fuck them and fuck anybody who sympathizes with the murderous towelhead camel fuckers. I would glady stick a blade in the side of one of those arab's necks, and watch him on his way to go burn in hell with allah. Yes, I am bloodthirsty too, but I am not about to hurt an innocent person or child simply because of their race or nationality. These terrorists are the real racists, right up there with Adolf Hitler. One more thing, if civilians die in the Iraqi war, it will be Saddam's fault. There's a report saying that he made US and UK military uniforms to give to some of his soldiers, so they could get footage of them killing civilians and then blame it on us. The world will be a better place when saddam and all the jihad waging arabs are in jail or dead.

Sorry about that, I guess I was a little harsh. Maybe I should have put that in the Uncivil debate on Iraq.

We need to fricking kill the son of a bitch.

This is rightly in violation of international law.

You know that if there were white chistian terrorists then nobody would hesitate to say [censored] christianity

Like Tim McVeigh? Or any of the other lone-wolf crowd? Or the many KKK members that were terrorists? Or the IRA?

It's as wrong to blame Christianity for their acts as it is to blame Islam for the acts of al Qaeda, et al.

Killing Saddam and a bunch of civilians in Iraq will not make the terrorist threat any less to us or anybody else. It will only make it worse.

I disagree with you there, buddy. Doing nothing and standing by while letting them do what they want will make it worse. Hunting them down and putting a bullet between their eyes will definitely weaken them. A dead terrorist can't organize and plan attacks, and a dead terrorist can't recruit brainwashed young arabs to join their evil jihad.

One more thing, I bet most of the afghanis like the US a lot more since they got their freedom.

However, this piece by John Perry Barlow talking a lot about what I believe that paper shows, before that paper came to light. He claims to have insights into Cheney's thought processes based on their work together and against each other.

Okay, I read that, and I'm still not understanding how a reasonable person can think that the ideals espoused in the paper would actually be executed, with the entire nation (and the entire world) watching. Dick Cheney was free to speak his mind back then, and sign his name to anything he wanted. Now he's the vice president, and some of the other people on that list have lesser positions... So they are now accountable for what they say and do.

I think your conspiracy would hold a lot more water if that paper was dated during a time when those people were decision-makers. Now that they are decision-makers, their decisions have to be palatable to the American people and the International community, regardless of what their ideals are. So I stand by my statement that the paper cannot be interpreted as a blueprint for what the current Bush administration actually plans to do -- it's just a historical snapshot of what a bunch of right-wingers wanted to do a couple years ago. With the whole world watching, there's no way they would actually attempt to initiate a hostile takeover of the entire Middle East.

I didnt say to do nothing and stand by.

their decisions have to be palatable to the American people and the International community, regardless of what their ideals are.

Phew, that's a relief! And there I was, thinking they were about to invade Iraq...

Peter

their decisions have to be palatable to the American people and the International community

But their actual current actions (or stated intentions) demonstrably aren't. Which punches a big hole in your argument.

It is, of course, something of a leap to assume that what a group of people wanted a few years ago is still what they want today, but it's not nearly as big a leap for me as it obviously is for you.

Phew, that's a relief! And there I was, thinking they were about to invade Iraq...

About to does not equal actually doing it. Right now, everything that has been done has been in compliance with U.N. Resolution 1441. A buildup of military force and the threat of war is the only thing that has caused ANY action on the Iraqi side. I am of the belief that the U.S. will continue to work the diplomatic channels to get a resolution that all 15 voting members will accept. Until now, it's all just been about lighting a fire under Saddam's ass.

But their actual current actions (or stated intentions) demonstrably aren't. Which punches a big hole in your argument.

No, it punches no such hole. See my response to peter. "Stated intentions" do not constitute actions. Nobody at the U.N. is mad at the U.S. for threatening war. Their opposition is to the actual prospect of war, and their own commitment of troops, resources, whatever. And they're also concerned with maintaining their own self-interest with Iraqi trade agreements and such. The International community passed 1441, and nothing done so far by the U.S. violates 1441. In fact, it's the only thing that's made Iraq fulfill *some* of their obligations stated in 1441.

Even a simpleton knows

OK, I'll retract that. I'll leave you with this sentiment:

I would humbly suggest that getting a gobble in the Oval office is considerably less immoral than invading another nation.

I would humbly suggest that getting a gobble in the Oval office is considerably less immoral than invading another nation.

And, I'd imagine, a lot more enjoyable!

I would humbly suggest that getting a gobble in the Oval office is considerably less immoral than invading another nation.

That, as dignan said, depends on the standard by which you define your morality. Much of humanity defines their morality on what feels "right" to them or popular opinion.

The standard by which I measure morality would indeed say that in the right circumstances, the invasion of a country is on higher moral ground than lying to the nation, being unfaithful to ones wife, and getting an intern "slob the knob" in the Oval office.

Sorry about the name-calling, Roger...you're obviously an very intelligent individual, and I shouldn't have said that.

getting a gobble

And I'm guessing he doesnt mean a turkey sandwich.

getting a gobble

Ouch! I suppose that has a bad connotation to us non-Brits. I usually use the term "gobble" to describe particularly voracious eating That would hurt!

But for the record, I completely agree with you, Roger.

I also won't deny you, Meatballman, of defining your morals in that way. They don't coincide with mine, but that's fine.

Man, I don't want to think about my classes when I'm posting on this board

Not that I want to get embroiled in this conversation, but I don’t believe morals are “personal” as you’ve stated. Either there is some objective moral standard to which we are all subject regardless of whether we know it or can articulate it, or there are no morals at all, only preferences that can be discarded when opinions differ. If this second model is true, it makes no real difference to whether invasion or a “gobble” are immoral and comparing the two makes no sense because it’s a personal determination without consequence. I realize that it is en vogue to view morals as “personal”, but then why do we discuss anything at all? Why do we always seem to be appealing to some unwritten rule that we expect others to understand if no such rule exists?

Please note that I’m not arguing in this post that my own understanding of morality is correct (though of course I believe that it is), only that I don’t believe morals are “personal”.

Morals are personal. However, many of the the choices that people make based on those morals are not.

I don't believe that morals should have any bearing on the qualifications of a politician, unless they can be shown to have caused actions that would have bearing, in which case, the morality itself is irrelevant, only the action that it caused.

For example, I fail to see how the morals that led to getting a hummer in the Oval Office affected Clinton's ability to be president. I do see how they affected his ability to be a good husband. The latter is none of our concern. The morals that would have led him to commit fraud in the Whitewater thing (had they ever been proven in any way) could affect his qualifications as president, but the action of the fraud itself would be enough to point that out.

Please note that I’m not arguing in this post that my own understanding of morality is correct (though of course I believe that it is), only that I don’t believe morals are “personal”.

If there was one standard of right and wrong, then the world would be a much simpler place. But that's not the world we live in. One can argue about whether it's *just* that people pick and choose their morals, but one cannot prevent them from doing so. Some people believe it is just to kill others. A wide majority of the world would not agree. But your definition of absolute morals assumes there's only one standard, and that's clearly not the case.

The mere existence of other beliefs and attitudes towards moral issues proves your theory wrong. There are likely many people on the planet with different morals than you, and you can't prove yours correct, and they can't prove theirs correct. All you can do is compare yours to what's generally accepted, or provide religious texts or legal documents which back your stance... But there's no way to fundamentally prove any particular moral decision right or wrong from a strictly logical point of view. It usually goes back to your family upbringing, your society, and, of course, your faith.

I'm sure the Rev can add more than his $0.02 to this.

Morals are personal. However, many of the the choices that people make based on those morals are not.

Ok, what I hear (or see) you saying is that actions affect others and therefore are right or wrong; however, there is no right or wrong when it comes to what drives those actions. I’ll agree that you can’t judge people by what they believe, only their actions (which is why hate-crime legislation is a crock), but since our moral beliefs are what drive our actions, aren’t “bad” actions derived from “bad” morals? To assign something “good” or “bad” implies that it is not personal, but objective. As I said, we can’t punish people for bad morals, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't try to help people reject them and instead adopt good morals.

As far as the President’s personal life goes, that’s a whole different argument that I don’t want to get into. Suffice to say you and I would have differing opinions.

which is why hate-crime legislation is a crock

Might want to elaborate on that statement a little...

In reply to:

---

This is his first term as president...

---

Al Gore received over 1/2 million more votes than Bush, the un-elected. Gore won the election. Bush defrauded the US people and like all great dictatorships, the people did nothing.

Bush and the vast majority of his team are directly connected to the oil industry.

Suffice to say you and I would have differing opinions.

So you think the President's marraige is your concern?

I definitely agree with Bitt. I should have phrased my statements differently (that could reflect the grade I'm getting in the course). Most of us do have those same morals. Yes, I think the actions of Clinton were immoral. I also think that Bush is guilty of immoral actions. That you consider certain actions to be more immoral than others is where the personal opinion starts in.

your faith

Of course, if my morals are determined objectively by my faith then I am constrained to believe that it is the only correct moral code. If it is not, then it is useless to have a faith, because the whole reason to live by faith is that you believe a greater power has revealed moral absolutes.

Obviously, if you do not share my faith, you will have your own sense of morality, and I can't blame you for living according to that. In fact, it would be useless to try to "push" my code of morality on to you, because it without the accompanying faith, it is meaningless.

I think everyone is guilty of immoral actions.

The mere existence of other beliefs and attitudes towards moral issues proves your theory wrong.

Not true. This only provides that we live in a world where we do not all adopt the morals that we should (myself included).

what I hear (or see) you saying is that ... there is no right or wrong when it comes to what drives those actions

No. What I'm saying is that the morals that drive the actions are irrelevant in the face of the actions themselves. A moral that drives you to hurt (or help) someone could well be considered wrong (or right). But I don't see that a moral that hurts or helps no one could be considered either right or wrong, and it's pointless to attempt to place any label on it. And labelling a moral in the face of an actual act, while not incorrect, is kind of pointless.

hate-crime legislation is a crock

I agree. To paraphrase Hank Hill ``I don't hate him because he's Laotian. I just hate him and he happens to be Laotian.''

Not true. This only provides that we live in a world where we do not all adopt the morals that we should

Flag on the play. Circular reasoning. 15 yards, repeat first down.