Carter: "What has happened to the United States of America?"

But the difference between age discrimination and blocking gay marriage is that the presumption on age is that the minors aren't knowledgeable enough to make informed judgements. WOuld it be your argument then that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry is because homsexuals aren't capable of making an informed judgement regarding marriage?

I agree that government shouldn't have any business in the marriage business but since its in it already and as you point out there aren't that this only affects a small percentage of the population why should it be banned? If its really only .75% of the population wants to get married and they're consenting adults what harm is there in allowing them too?

 

It is ridiculous to claim that the sanctions and first Gulf War were merely "UN Actions" which were not virtually coerced by the United States Perhaps you believe in black UN helicpters and now view the United States as just the humble servant of the UN.

As far as murderous. You yourself argue at times, though obviously facetiously, that the second or war against Iraq was necessary to eliminate the sanctions that were killing so many Iraqi kids.

 

95% of the Iraqis fighting us are not Al Qaeda types blowing up civilians. More than 99% of the Iraqis killed probably more like 99.9% have not been Al Qaeda types.

Yeah right anyone against the war sees Al Qaeda as "heroes". I guess you got that from Cheny.

 

If you agree the government should not be involved in marriages period, then why are you not leading a cause to remove the government completely. Once again, our marriag e system in the courts are screwed up enough for hetros. There is no need to add to the fire.

 

I'm not leading the charge either way because its not an issue that really concerns me. In general I think government should get out of the marriage business but since it doesn't concern me hugely that they are I think its bigger issue they are carving out what I believe to be an irrational exemption that is discriminatory.

The thing that seems strange to me is that if it is only. 75% of people that will be affected by Gay marriage is why would it affect marriage either good or bad? If there is a fire and I add .75% more wood into the fire its not going to get significantly hotter.

 

The UN isn't a servant or master of the US but in the case of the sanctions on Iraq though there was widespread support for imposing them even among countries that later on opposed us in regard to invading Iraq. Since it just takes one veto from a permanent member of the Security Council the UN is essentially paralyzed without unanimous agreement. The fact that the sanctions passed the UNSC shows that the whole security council agree to it. While yes the US wields a great amount of influence that influence has its limits otherwises we would've seen a whole bunch of UNSC resolutions against Cuba.

So you can't just dismiss that other countries and the UN have no culpability in regard to the sanctions and place it all on the US. They were a collective action.

 

I think this is a question of pragmatic policy making. While I would love it if that the government just recognized some civil union equivelent and didn't bother with marriages, lets face it that won't happen. Instead we have the status quo in which government grants benefits to some and not to others because of sexual orientation. You either recognize all marriages or none but having this halfway system of recognizing some marriages and denying others is worse than any other alternative.

 

I personally think winning hearts and minds of the Iraqis, or even some of the insurgents, is easier than those of the bigots in our own country.

 

On another note, will George W Bush ever write a book, such as, of his own bio?

I guess to be a writer, you've gotta be a good reader first. We all know George doesn't like to read.

 

He certainly won't write his bio himself, that would be work. He can barely speak. I would hate to see his actual writing.

The real question is whether GWB will actually read his own ghost writen bio. I am betting not, since that too would be work.

 

Well you got one part right. Bush is only attempting to serve the 51% of voters that selected him as their candidate of choice. Too bad almost 2/3rds of the country's population think he is not serving them well.

 

glynch, you certainly do live in your own little reality. The first Gulf War and the following sanctions were UN actions. There was across the board international support for those actions. To claim that the US strong armed those actions is to have no understanding of history at all. It's an absurd conlusion. You think the US coerced the EU and Syria, for example, into action? Why then - one might ask - could we not do it for the second intervention? Why couldn't then, the US coerce the UN into acting in Bosnia? Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

I argued that ending the sanctions is a benefit of the second Gulf War. Nothing facetious about that - simply dealing in the facts.

 

You would be wrong or at least guilty of painting in such broad strokes that even GWB would envy.

The sanction support was fading as time went by. After the UN inpsection regime concluded that Saddam was al least 95% WMD disarmed, France start to lean toward dropping the sanction (via a UNSSC veto). This was a real possibility when GWB took office, i.e. pre-9-11.

 

EVEN IF one were to grant your point without argument that would not change the fact that these were UN sanctions, nor that they weren't strong armed in by the US in '90 - which is glynch's assertion. Further, that would still leave the first ten years of sanctions on the UN's doorstep and 1 or 2 years worth at the US's. That's without arguing your point at all. I don't think that's either wrong or painting with too broad of strokes.

If one wanted to argue your point, we could probably start with Security Council Resolution 1441 - which passed unanimously (ie including France) in 2002. Even in '99/2000 when the debate about lifting sanctions really started to heat up, Iraq rejected France's plan to ease restrictions if Iraq complied with inspections. And of course France and Russia opposed lifting sanctions immediately after Saddam's removal.

 

George W. Bush wrote the book? hmm..that's weird.