MonteZuma

I think nothing is obvious. Who created the 'someone' that created the elements and atoms? If He was always there then what did He do for the eternity before He created elements and atoms? Apparently there is a strange relationship between time and space and matter that ordinary people just don't understand. I don't think that we should put all our eggs in one basket and expect that there must have been a creator.

Where in your definition does it state that the judgment of goodness or badness is only the domain of God and religion?

Bah. Without anthropomorphising too much, it is clear that many animal species engage in masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality (ie sex with a different species), sex with minors (sex with juveniles of the same species) and incest. Sex isn't just about survival of the species. We have condoms and the pill so that we can have sex without the 'danger' of procreation. The birthrate in the west keeps dropping even though there is more sexual openness than ever before. Self- (or species-) preservation and sex are 2 different things that are only partly linked.

Marriage is not purely a religious ins!@#$%^&*ution. Many non-religious people get married. There are legal implications !@#$%^&*ociated with marriage that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with civil rights and responsibilities. Gay people want access to those same rights and responsibilities. That is all. Religion should have nothing to do with it. The president shouldn't drag religion into the debate. He isn't the religious and moral leader in this debate. His job is to represent the people. And just because 70% of Americans don't want gay marriages doesn't mean that it should be banned. 30% is still a huge number of supporters. Democracy isn't a case of majority rules. Democracy is about government by the people. In a true democracy, even the will of the minority is considered in the decision-making process. What are the 70% afraid of anyway? What are the cons !@#$%^&*ociated with gay marriage? Once those !@#$%^&*umptions are surfaced the treatment of this issue might start to make sense. At this time though it seems to be just an ignorant religious debate.

Sorry, if it goes against church law the pope has full power to tell the member to go screw himself. The pope is the leader of the catholic church, right? Please don't tell me that being a member of the Catholic church is now a civil right, regardless of beliefs. Freedom of religion is the civil right I think is being trampled on. US democracy is screwed when the US president's own policies and views need to be approved by the pope. The president himself needs to tell the pope to go screw himself. He won't, because there are too many zealots in the US. Religion and US politics are far from seperate.

The pope should butt out of domestic politics in free and democratic nations. If the US people want the right to choose an abortion then the pope can go screw himself. Kerry isn't trying to destroy the church. The pope and other senior people in the church do that job well enough on their own. Pfft. The pope should take a stand against pedophilia more than anything else. Dirty catholic -*BAD WORD*-s.

Great. In that case I get the last word. The sooner Iraq is off the front pages, the sooner we might see some progress in the fight against terrorism. The US turned an international lame duck into a hotbed of terrorist activity. GWB claimed to be fighting terrorism, but instead he encouraged it.

Or they could have been destroyed, as inspectors were told by the Iraqi defector in 1995 who ordered their destruction. Blair accidentally left that out of his weapons dossier. Saddam invaded 2 countries - Iran - with US blessing, and Kuwait - because he thought he had US blessing. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Iraq had absolutely no capability of invading or attacking anybody. So he wasn't dangerous to anybody - not even the Kurds. Now there is a power vacuum. That is where part of the danger lies. Furthermore, Bush and Blair have almost single-handedly destabilised almost every muslim country. Millions of citizens of muslim countries hate the US more than ever because of what they see as meddling in Islamic affairs (ie more righteous indignation and more terrorists!). The US has a huge perception problem. Some governments in Islamic countries will be influenced by this and the result might be negative for the west. Another way that the world has become more dangerous is that the authority of the UN has been threatened. The war on terror would be more effective if there was mutual respect and true global cooperation. And I haven't even mentioned the way that the US has trampled on human rights, and the long-term affect this might have on 'civilising' parts of the third world. The US really should lead by example. At the moment they are simply condoning attrocities. Bin Laden on the other hand is a known terrorist. No rational person would regret his capture. Confusing Bin Laden with Saddam is exactly what your government wants you to do.

I think your government does. Often this is achieved by sending captors to third countries. The torturing is done ex-situ by foreign governments on behalf of the US. The CIA call this 'rendering'. Having said that, I'm sure the US also carries out its own torture. The pictures that came out showing naked Iraqis was a small glimpse of what goes on. I think if it were that easy it would have been done already. I'd probably be less diplomatic and divide the pessimists and optimists into realists and fantasists. The war on terror can be won, but not in the way in which it is being fought now. It'd get boring if we weren't a little strong from time to time I think I'll end on a positive note and simply say - I can't argue with that.

If weapons inspectors looked inside my kitchen cupboards and in my garage they would find samples of gas and probably a few biological hazards too. What was found did not consitute a threat to anybody. I concede that NOBODY knew for sure that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but the fact is the military and political pressure that had been applied on Iraq, the sanctions, and the weapons inspectors WERE working. Many people believed that. They were right. The US decided to ignore anyone who pushed that message. Bush wanted a war. Period. What good reason? Did you not listen to anything Blix said? Blix thought that the inspectors were making progress. He didn't want to leave. he wanted to keep doing his job. It was some idea cooked up by Bush and Blair. Didn't you see the 'evidence' that they presented as proof of the immediate threat? Anyone with half a brain knew at the time it was full of holes. It was a concoction. The fact is a lot of people weren't convinced about the dire, immediate threat that the US and UK government proclaimed based on evidence in some second rate PhD thesis and from a few dodgy photographs. Don't you remember the massive street protests? Everyone one of those tree hugging, bleeding heart hippies was right. The red-neck right just can't admit that they were wrong. Way wrong. Yeah I know. Kerry is the best of a bad bunch. If I had my choice someone else would be the next US president. Unfortunately its only a 2 horse race. Most of the world gets their news from the BBC and CNN and similar services like FOX, NBC, etc. All of these news services are based in countries that support the war. People are making up their own mind on this. Most people I know understand geopolitics better than the average news writer or presenter. Blaming the media is wrong. The US government use and manipulate the media much more successfully than the disorganised dissenters. Everyone knows the French are wierd (sorry French people, but even you know its true ). What makes you think that the US had to go around the UN? Where was the immediate threat to the US from Iraq? The fact is the threat had already been contain before the invasion. There was no need to 'go around the UN'.

A bit long and a bit emotional, but many good points. I agree with the general ideas.

If the weapons weren't destroyed, where are they? Blix was given the run around, but at the time of the invasion Blix had unprecedented access to Iraqi installations. He wanted to continue his search. The access issue was improving at the exact time that the US decided to invade. The situation wasn't deteriorating. Why go to war? The US, UK, USSR/Russia, France, Germany, China and others all supplied arms to Iraq - and much of this trade was reprehensible (eg the Osirak nuclear reactor - sheesh), but this ceased in 1991 because of UN resolutions. I guess the German and French position might have been partly economic, but it wasn't because of post 1991 arms trading. Some of the claims that trades with german firms included products that could be used in WMDs (eg ultrasound machines that could be used as nuclear triggers and refrigerated trucks that could be used as mobile chemical weapons factories) have proven to be false because the weapons and the infrastructure to make them just don't exist. Discounting everything that happened before the Gulf War, the US would be the good guy if it acted to support the UN, rather than dump on it. Now the US is simply seen as an arrogant unilateralist that makes the world more and more dangerous every day.

Thinking out loud: The middle of a crisis may not be the best time to make rational decisions anyway? Maybe this should be the subject of a referenda?

Heh. Yeah. Isn't that just the funniest thing? He DID destroy them. Wow. If only somebody listened to the Iraqi defectors and the weapons inspectors and followed up on their suspicions we could have avoided the whole war. Wow. If only the US listened to the UN, including the French and Germans there would be 1,000 less US dead, and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives would also be saved. Gas prices would also be cheaper. Gee. maybe war wasn't such a great idea after all.

Indeed. That is why it is time for Bush to go. The world is no closer to being free of terrorists or the potential of attacks by terrorists with WMDs than it was before Iraq was invaded. Iraq was a disasterous waste of time and resources. Its time to acknowledge the mistakes made by Bush and his team and move on. Go Kerry!

What grand calamaty would have occurred if the US didn't invade Iraq? Why do you say that there was 'no choice'? Well no. Not really. But neither can soldiers. But terrorists can change (eg Spain) and influence (eg the Philipines) governments. Terrorist supporters are willing to sacrifice everything. The more freedom you take away from terrorists (or potential terrorists), the more likely you are to breed more terrorists. If you look up information on the psychology of terrorism you will find some interesting material. There is a sense of righteous indignation which doesn't go away just because of loss of life and freedom. In fact this simply fuels the anger even more. And I doubt that the US will ever use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism. It would be a stupid thing to do. IMHO, there is an ever so slight chance that tactical nuclear weapon could be used, but it would change the face of global politics much more than the 9/11 attacks did. It would be a monumental disaster.

Bah. What justifiable interest did the US have in the Iran/Iraq conflict? The US was blatantly irresponsible in its handling of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. The support extended from the export of weapons grade poisons and raw ingredients and included !@#$%^&*istance in deploying the gas most effectively. This directly controvened the 1925 Geneva accords, to which Iraq was also a signatory. It was a war crime. Commited by the US and by Iraq. You don't think cyanide, mus-*BAD WORD*- gas, botulin poison or anthrax are potential WMDs? Your government disagrees - and went to war on that basis. Your government sold them to Saddam. And then there are the $5 Billion in unreported loans to Iraq that were earmarked to be spent on lots of industrial projects - and were eventually thought by US intelligence to have been used as seed money to support an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Of course the US was part of the problem. Pfft. And this little piece of history has a huge bearing on the problem today. You deny this by saying that Bush wasn't in power at the time. Well Rumsfield was. He was Reagan's friggin envoy. He had a key role in the whole debacle. No wonder he was so convinced that the WMDs were there. He personally signed the receipts. Its a shame that nobody listened to the weapons inspectors and the defectors who suspected that there were no more WMDs (ie chemical weapons) to be found. History also teaches us what happens when you meddle in foreign affairs without fully understanding the consequences of your actions. There is a lesson still unlearned. Bush and everyone who supported him WAS wrong. Whether or not the US is evil is a matter of opinion. Although I think most would agree that some of its actions in relation to Iraq have been evil. Selling anthrax to a maniacal dictator might be considered an evil act if you knew one of the victims.

How will we know when the war is won? The only thing that terrorists need to thrive are supporters. The "will" to do something about it will only be effective if that will is translated into actions that work - ie actions that make people choose not to support terrorist activity. There is no precedent at all that makes me think that the US will win the war on terror - especially not alone using the military as the first line of defense. This truly does need to be a global effort and it can't be won by sending in the marines. Ignoring the UN on this was a horribly bad call.

I haven't read the whole discussion, but I think this point can be taken at least one step further. It should also be an offense to hand a weapon to anybody who you reasonably know to be dangerous, incompetent and/or unlikely to use the weapon within the law - even if you have no knowledge whatsoever of any actual intended crime. Its like giving a packet of razor blades or a box of matches to a child and then complaining when people get cut and things get burned.

Multiple sources. Some examples: CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, National Public Radio, subspace, people I've met, Law and Order: SVU, Sally Jessy Raphael. Seriously. I am bombarded by US culture and opinions. Probably almost as much as you are. You are extrapolating too much from my simple statement. But it is a well know fact that Americans know much less about what goes on outside of their borders than the citizens of many other western nations. Based on country of birth and as a percentage of the total population, Australia and Canada are much more diverse than the US. This is a gross oversimplification. Thanks for proving my point. You should look more carefully at the types of aid that the US gives and ask yourself whether it will help build stronger and more stable governments. Often US aid programs are tied in with US trade policies that are highly detrimental to third world economies. Agricultural subsidies, over-production and dumping of surplus wheat is a classic example. As a percentage of GNP, Canada donates almost twice as much as the US in aid. Europe is by far the most generous, but Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are all more generous than the US. Many people disagree. Some disagree violently. Thanks again for demonstrating one of my points. Thanks for demonstrating another of my points.

Mainstream American television coverage is biased because Americans don't want to hear news that conflicts with their world view. Every nation is the same. However, people in many other nations have a much more balanced world view and are more receptive to news from a variety of viewpoints. I reckon some of the reasons behind the US way of looking at news are: - The huge size of the US (esp. population and economy). - An education system that is too inward-looking. - The US's isolationist and militaristic history. - An extremely capitalist social fabric that encourages self-centredness and instant gratification I could probably think of a few others. Maybe when I see or read some of Michael Moore's stuff I will be able to expand the list? People in smaller countries are traditionally much more affected by the world outside. Its not surprising that their news has a wider coverage. 9/11 kinda demonstrates that people in the US need to spend a bit more time looking outside too. It'll probably happen one day.

What is the difference between 'good' and 'right'?

And you only type short ones when you are stoned?

Plato had a lot to say about Truth and politics. He thought that philosophers were the ideal rulers in a society because only they are capable of knowing the 'absolute truth'. IMO he was wrong. You can't reasonably seperate Plato's political opinions from his philosophical views. Why would you want to in a political forum?

Many ancient and modern philosophers have kicked Plato's -*BAD WORD*-, starting with Aristotle. Plato's views on the 'perfect' political system are almost laughable. In fact almost any high school student with a little bit of political science knowledge can kick his -*BAD WORD*-.