A lot of Latinoamerican countrys rejected a petition from de USA, for inmmunity for his Soldiers. the reaction? this Latinoamerican countrys will stop receiving resources for education, military capacitacion, etc. so, this is the way to fight terrorism? ja! inmmunity for soldiers? JA! so if a soldier kills a kid? he?s innocent? ja! Fuck off!!

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Same thing with the international court of justice in the hague. They bailed out on that one, too. Anyone can be tried and convicted there, like Milosevic who's put to the stand now, but no US citizens.

Cheap

that's because we're not committing any crimes. :P

if the international community wants to try Bush for something, tell ya what, come and get him. :twisted:

There's a very good reason why the USA, as well as my country Israel, did not sign the accords that allows its citizens to be tried in the International Court of Justice, simply put, the said court can not be trusted to be fair and unbiased when it comes to certain countries.

Its seems that this centuries favourite past time is bashing the USA for simply having the balls many other countries do not have. The International Court has shown only recently that its judgements are political and not just legal. Why should the USA (or Israel) trust it!

As for other courts putting on trial soldiers of other countries for simply following their direct orders, well this is a ludicrus state of affairs, if you dont like the actions of the soldier, take it out on those who ultimately (well in democracies anyway) give the orders, the politicians.

[quote=davetlv]Its seems that this centuries favourite past time is bashing the USA for simply having the balls many other countries do not have. The International Court has shown only recently that its judgements are political and not just legal. Why should the USA (or Israel) trust it! [/quote]

:RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn: :RockOn:

[quote=davetlv]As for other courts putting on trial soldiers of other countries for simply following their direct orders, well this is a ludicrus state of affairs, if you dont like the actions of the soldier, take it out on those who ultimately (well in democracies anyway) give the orders, the politicians.[/quote]

Why should a soldier not be held responsible for their actions just because they were ordered to do them?

Even the lowliest foot soldier should have the moral capability to know the difference between right and wrong - when it comes to issues which are serious enough to be considered for war crimes. I don't think the people who order them to take immoral actions should get off the hook in the least, but I do feel that responsibility for actions should be held by all in the chain of command - from the person who was "ordered" to carry them out to the officer who ordered it, to the politicians who encourage and allow the environment whereby such things occur.

Do all military systems create an environment where the ones taking orders live in a vacuum devoid of ethical evaluation and are simply robots who are expected to follow orders?

[quote=krelm] Why should a soldier not be held responsible for their actions just because they were ordered to do them?

Even the lowliest foot soldier should have the moral capability to know the difference between right and wrong - when it comes to issues which are serious enough to be considered for war crimes. I don't think the people who order them to take immoral actions should get off the hook in the least, but I do feel that responsibility for actions should be held by all in the chain of command - from the person who was "ordered" to carry them out to the officer who ordered it, to the politicians who encourage and allow the environment whereby such things occur.

Do all military systems create an environment where the ones taking orders live in a vacuum devoid of ethical evaluation and are simply robots who are expected to follow orders?[/quote]

Krelm, when you live in a world which uses military power to carry out political might, then its the politicians who should be held responsible. Whether the "lowliest foot soldier should have the moral capability to know the difference between right and wrong" is not the arguement. When you sign up, either out of choice or through conscription, you agree to take the orders of your superiors, thats the nature of being in uniform. Should a soldier behave in a way which is incompatable with wearing their unifrom, then it should be up their superiors to take action against them.

In an ideal world not only would we not require armed forces but we would be living in a world without borders, but we dont live in an ideal world.

But that wasn't my point. My point was about the political nature of the so-called International Court,

Let me try to explain it a different way. Had my family not left Israel when i was a child, i would no doubt been conscripted into the army in 1986, which would have meant that the majority of my national service sould have been carried out during the first intifada. Let's say that i was in a fighting unit, and during an incursion into a terrorist camp my unit were bombarded by home made molotov cocktails and other such devices. It would be in my nature to fire indiscrimently to try and enure that my comrades and myself got out in one piece. Now lets say one of my bullets hit a 16 yo youth who was trowing a molotov. Simple. No arguement there. I was defending myself and my comrades.

Now lets move forward 15 years, the boys family has brought a case against me to the International Court. You would think that i would have no case to answer, unless you take into account the highly politicised nature of that court. A court that ignores a terrorist uprising, including the murder of innocent civillians, and only looks at a political occupation. Would i get a fair trial? Of course not.

This same arguement can and should be used not just for the International Court but also by natioanl courts.

Just my personal thought mind!

[quote=Jenks]that's because we're not committing any crimes. :P

if the international community wants to try Bush for something, tell ya what, come and get him. :twisted:[/quote]

Yeah...well.....maybe I just will..!! Cuz Superman is my best friend! And he'll help me. Rite? Sup?

:Gotcha:

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Oh, and by the way: I recollect reading somewhere that [b]any soldier may refuse an order on moral grounds[/b]. And Even if such an order is given and executed, it is everyone in that chain of command from top to bottom that is responsible in my opinion.

DaveTLV, that case about you killing the 16-yr old boy is too hypothetical to be applicable here imo, and anywayz, I really see that you're identifying yourself with the USA, while lving in Israel. I wasn't talking about the latter, although it could very well become subject in a law suit someday, but so can the Palestinian Authorities.

I agree on your stand that a country should try and convict it's own soldiers, but that stimulates partiality. The International Court was founded to provide an impartial Court of Justice in International affairs. I'm not sure wether it really works like that, time will have to tell.

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

IMHO, the international court of justice is just a big fat farce. Its decisions are not binding, 'cause it's biased :Wasted:

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

[quote=Yao]DaveTLV, that case about you killing the 16-yr old boy is too hypothetical to be applicable here imo, and anywayz, I really see that you're identifying yourself with the USA, while lving in Israel. I wasn't talking about the latter, although it could very well become subject in a law suit someday, but so can the Palestinian Authorities.

I agree on your stand that a country should try and convict it's own soldiers, but that stimulates partiality. The International Court was founded to provide an impartial Court of Justice in International affairs. I'm not sure wether it really works like that, time will have to tell.[/quote]

Having lived in the UK for 34 years it has never been said about me that i've ever identified with the US. What my experience has shown me living here, and coming backwards and forwards most of my adult life, is the fact that, like Israel, the US is now in a no win situation. They have the balls to follow through on Iraq after far too many security council resolutions against Sadaam, and all of a sudden everyone is against them. The hypocrasy of the political elite of this planet is insane. With such hypocrasy, no one other then the US is abe to judge its own soldiers.

Also, there is a great difference between how something was founded and how it opperates today. The international court is the last place on this beautiful planet of ours that can be called impartial.

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

All I can say is thank god for guys like davetlv and jenks!!! Dave i truly respect your comments and i agree with you 100%. Jenks I have seen your posts all over the political forums and also truly appreciate your blunt patriotism and pride for the United States. Funny to me though is why others cant see the current situation for what it really is. The truth is the US has been a beacon of freedom and hope for the entire world to model itself from. The us has freed literally billions of people in the short history of our country. It is the number one benefactor of financial aid in the entire world, with no other country coming even close to the amount of money America spends on aid. We have shown the world how democracy and capitalism can be the two ingredients of a nations political and economic strength. Look at our 2 greatest allies, the UK and Israel! Two of the strongest economies in the world from yes you guessed it, capitalism. So it should be no suprise then that the US would promote these fundamental ingredients for a nations success across the globe. Fact is if everyone can remember back to right after Sept 11 Bush had and 88% approval rating, more so than any other president in history. The civilized western world was saying lets go get him, sign me up for the military, we cant wait a single moment for these guys to strike again. So we liberated afghanistan(which by the way just had millions of citizens show up to vote for thier leaders in a free democtratic election-thanks to the United States), and then we rid Iraq of one of the most gruesome tyrants the world has ever seen. And now we are committed to rebuilding Iraq after again liberating milions of citizens and setting the stage for a free democratic government. We as a world have seen that terrorists are not partial only to the United States. Think back to the night club bombing in Bali, the Madrid train attacks, Tanzania, Phillipines, etc. These people attack our ideology. And now as we have entered a new era in time and as the United States has adopted a leading role in combating the war on terror, we still have trouble finding sympathizers??!! President Bush has said numerous times "We will not allow these critical issues to be a problem for a president 8 years from now, and we will never back down to the face of terror, certainly not on my watch" He said in 2001 after, as davetlv stated, Iraq violated 18 UN sanctions and kicked out UN nuclear weapons inspectors numerous times, that now they have awoken a sleeping giant! And thats why now the Bush Administration has taken a proactive offensive position in seeking out terrorists where they lay their heads, and taking the fight to them, so that they cannot attack us on our own soil. A great example of how this offensive position is continuing to secure the safety of Americans is the arrest a few days ago of two muslims at a mosque in Albany, NY taking part in the purchase of a shoulder fired rocket launcher to be used to shoot down US planes on American soil. The intelligence that gave us these two came from a Al Queda computer engineers laptop who was arrested in Pakistan. Again, a proactive military offensive! The point of the story, so I dont get too far off topic, is if in the midst of executing our agenda of national security and attempting to stabilize the middle east through democracy civilians are killed by mistake...well NO international court is going to be making any decisions whatsoever about the fate of our boys.

Again davetlv and jenks....you guys rock.

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Neuro,

I agree with you about the fact that Dave and Jenks have good comments, and I for myself could say that I like having a discussion with them, BUT...

Do you drink your everyday-portion of patriottism or what? I live in Europe, I criticize the US, but also Europe, and my own government, too. I don't take one side, I try to weigh all the arguments for or against something at my disposal and then try to formulate an opinion. A beacon of freedom and hope...I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but I think the US is a place where people's freedoms are subject to many pressure groups which all want to have the people in general lving to their standards. How the fuck can Bush try to get a constitutional change to prevent gay marriage?? In doing this, he proves that he doesn't see himself in service to the people, but thinks he knows what is best for everyone. How can one man decide what's good and what is not? And at this moment, I think the US is too much subject to people of mostly Christian belief that want to impose their norms and values on the rest of the country. As an atheist, that scares me; nobody should be able to tell me what to do on grounds of a BELIEF. That is irrational.

You say the US is the number one aid benefactor of the world: in absolute terms, maybe. But more than 50% of your aid consists of military equipment, not financial resources or (technical) knowledge to strengthen economies. The Netherlands pay up to 0.81% of GDP to aid, the US no more than 0.14%. So per capita we pay a lot more than you. You may pay the most in absolute terms, but we have a bigger financial burden per capita to carry here...European countries may not be the first ones to support military action, but they are generally (not always) accepted more because they advocate long-term development. I?m not saying it?s perfect, but slow changes are more permanent than radical changes, like bringing democracy to a country in one year that doesn?t have a history of democracy. How the fuck are you going to change a political attitude in one year, while we took about 700 years to come this far? Military intervention should only be used in cases like Darfur, Sudan, in which case I would like the UN to support the US. I think so far Powell is doing a better job on that than Kofi Annan, whom I?ve started to see as a cowardly politician. But I really, REALLY don?t see what a regime change has to do with finding terorrists: the terorrists hide amongst the people, and what is happening now is that an entire country gets generalized as being a terrorist state, while maybe 99,99% of the people don?t wanna have anything to do with them! You don?t fool me, Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and there?s one simple reason why I?m convinced about that: they didn?t help the man in any way after he had to run. If they had, it could?ve been a great psychological advantage, the US not being able to find Saddam. But they left him to die out there (or get captured). What you are doing is: first you invade a country and ?liberate? it, and then you start looking for terrorrists...huh? And then you install a democracy now that you?re at it. Maybe, just maybe, it would be better to strenghten an economy and the institutions before installing a democracy, because that is in most cases the reason for it?s failure: state-controlling and executing institutions just aren?t strong enough to keep a firm grip on the government. As for a gruesome dictator gotten rid of: good thing! Care to take on the other dozens that are still left out there, too? I?d be grateful. Kick out Mugabe, Nguema, and the likes in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe/Southern Russia.

You advocate capitalism, I don?t. Capitalism is what sucks Africa dry at the moment (Yes, I?m an Afrophile), as well as Latin-America and Southeast Asia. Capitalims only works as long as there is economical inequality, which makes it possible to grow for one side at the cost of the other. Growing always takes place at a cost, be it food, money, labour, natural resources. America and Europe thrive on natural resources taken from the aforementioned areas, and we have an interest in keeping it that way. Imagine what would happen if those countries would stop exporting their oil or minerals, and started actively to build up their self-supplying industries...it?s possible you know, but they?re still going for the easy money by exporting all their goods instead of making long-term investments that could eventually lead to a strong industry.

Political influence goes with economical influence, and that my very well be the core issue here imho.

Ps: Don?t take this personal, I?m just someone trying to make people aware that there?s more sides to all these stories. I hate narrow-mindedness, only looking and judging from your own cultural/political background. We need understanding, respect and logic to get real results, not blunt violence or economical force.

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Yao, nothing to take personal here so no worries. I respect your opinion, and you make a few good points.(ok maybe just like one or two) I too am an atheist and I dont feel that because bush proposed a bill to stop gay marriage has as much to do with religion as you say. Fact is just about every state in the US is now on board with the bill, and an overwhelming percentage of the population is against it too. Come on now Yao, were talking about the union between a man and a woman, a tradition that a man and a woman can be proud of. If we start letting fags marry, whats next? Polygomy having numerous wifes, or maybe a man can marry his favorite goat. Point is Yao, if you allow fags to marry you open the door to a corrosive and pervasive society. Point 1.

Point 2. Im not sure I completely understand your position on economics but I feel you leaning towards socialism. Most of what you said exists in a perfect world(or maybe in your own perfect world) but the rest of us live in a real world, and you might want to spend your tax money that you've earned to support govt funded programs for people who sit at home and make babies without a father and dont work, use your tax money to buy drugs, and who spend much of their lives in and out of prison. Now, I believe that every person is entitled to some sort of healthcare. But me(the capitalist that I am) want to be able to benefit from my hard work, and dont feel that I should be supporting people who are simply looking for a hand out. Furthermore, your comments about Saddam and Iraq and combating terrorism are shocking! Cant even comment. Yao your a good guy and I respect your views, but wise up!

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

[quote=neur0t0xin64]

Fact is just about every state in the US is now on board with the bill, ...

...Come on now Yao, were talking about the union between a man and a woman, a tradition that a man and a woman can be proud of. If we start letting fags marry, whats next? Polygomy having numerous wifes, or maybe a man can marry his favorite goat. Point is Yao, if you allow fags to marry you open the door to a corrosive and pervasive society. Point 1.[/quote]

The bill lost by more than two thirds in Missouri. :? Fucking sad people still live in caves.

[quote]"What happens when we start letting [i]fags[/i] :? marry?"[/quote]

How about a progression of our society? Who fucking cares, really, if gays want to marry? It's not going to ruin any kind of tradition when i marry a woman. In fact, when i get married, the last thing i'm going to be worried about is gay people, and if they're married or not. Who actually thinks about shit like this and lets it bother them? I'll tell you who...the Christian right. I thought you were atheist?

[quote]"A Corrosive and pervsive society?"[/quote]

:lol: haha, really, what's not already corrosive about it? Just let people live and make chioces, jeez.

[quote]"Then a man will marry his goat?"][/quote]

How many people have wanted to marry an animal? I'm guessing the number is pretty slim, except in canada. :lol: If there's some freaking weirdo out there that wants to bang his goat behind his closed door, while still paying taxes and contributing to society...then let the fucking weirdo bang his goat in peace for all i care.

This primitive thinking by the christian right against gays is one of the things that makes it tough to vote republican, even though i still do. Give the people a break for fucks sake, and lets move on.

While i found some of your other points in other threads quality, point 1 above pretty much sucks neruo. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Cheers.

(and i realize there has been a serious thread hijack from topic here in the last few posts, oops.)

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

[quote=Jenks][quote=neur0t0xin64]

Fact is just about every state in the US is now on board with the bill, ...

...Come on now Yao, were talking about the union between a man and a woman, a tradition that a man and a woman can be proud of. If we start letting fags marry, whats next? Polygomy having numerous wifes, or maybe a man can marry his favorite goat. Point is Yao, if you allow fags to marry you open the door to a corrosive and pervasive society. Point 1.[/quote]

The bill lost by more than two thirds in Missouri. :? Fucking sad people still live in caves.

[quote]"What happens when we start letting [i]fags[/i] :? marry?"[/quote]

How about a progression of our society? Who fucking cares, really, if gays want to marry? It's not going to ruin any kind of tradition when i marry a woman. In fact, when i get married, the last thing i'm going to be worried about is gay people, and if they're married or not. Who actually thinks about shit like this and lets it bother them? I'll tell you who...the Christian right. I thought you were atheist?

[quote]"A Corrosive and pervsive society?"[/quote]

:lol: haha, really, what's not already corrosive about it? Just let people live and make chioces, jeez.

[quote]"Then a man will marry his goat?"][/quote]

How many people have wanted to marry an animal? I'm guessing the number is pretty slim, except in canada. :lol: If there's some freaking weirdo out there that wants to bang his goat behind his closed door, while still paying taxes and contributing to society...then let the fucking weirdo bang his goat in peace for all i care.

This primitive thinking by the christian right against gays is one of the things that makes it tough to vote republican, even though i still do. Give the people a break for fucks sake, and lets move on.
[/quote]

I recognize that this is off the larger point of of this thread, but for the record, here, here -- or hear here -- or here hear -- you get the idea). I was disturbed but regrettably not surprised at the margin by which the gay marriage ban passed in MO. Lots and lots of closed minded, bigoted people in this state, I'm afraid.

Good to know though, that when I ultimately decide to get married, the institution of marriage won't be tainted by some "fag's" desire for equal rights. :roll:

Seriously, the preamble to our Constitution, coupled with recent case law and a healthy dose of common sense, makes it very clear that [b]every person[/b] is entitled, as an inalienable right, to the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To me, allowing gay people to marry falls squarely within that category. How that impedes the right of a straight person, or anyone for that matter, to enjoy these rights is completely beyond me.

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Neuro, thnx for the comments. I still stand by them , but don't worry: I'm not a utopian tree-hugging socialist hippie...I'm just being concerned about the way things are going right now.

As for gay marriage...hell, we also have euthanasia here, legal abortion. Think what you want about my little shitty country (Holland)...but you gotta admit: we're still way ahead of the rest on progressive thinking in those matters. (We should've just been bigger IMO) :mrgreen:

I just can't imagine why someone would deny someone else a right in it's own? That is discriminating. I'm totally for Gay marriage (I have several gay friends, they say I have a cute ass, but I'm saving that for the beautiful woman I'm bound to walk into shortly), Euthanasia and Abortion.

:RockOn:

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

well..it seems that I generate some intelligent chating..

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Hmmm, seems this thread has gotten a bit off topic, but I'll just go along with it. As for gay marraige, I really don't give a rat's ass if gays marry in U.S., but I want that issue to be resolved democratically, not by judicial review. I know this means that gays probably wouldn't be able to marry for some time because the majority of the American public is against it, but that's the way democracys work. It takes time for the majority of the general public to change their views. Then, it rarely doubles back. The robust courts of the U.S., aside from acting like Guardians, don't always get it right (by right I mean as judged against the opinion of the demos). Take Roe v Wade for example. Although the case was decided 31 years ago, it is still one of the most hotly debated political issues. Just to be fair - a case they did get right - Brown v Board of Ed. But that was handled differently anyway.

Ok, now I'm way off topic. Sorry. Somebody please take this back on track.

Oh, I know! Perhaps there are US soldiers who are gay and want to marry and are also concerned about having immunity in Latinoamerican countries. There, right back on topic :lol:

Yao I never said that Holland is a shitty little country, infact I love Holland. There are many things to be learned there. But its undeniable the fact that most of the world is hating on the US, acting as if all of a sudden we have a christian unilaterist president, who is acting as a crusader of the world. Fact is terror groups like Al Queda waged war against the US and our ideology 30 years ago. So now were on the hunt for the agents of death who want to disrupt the the worlds economy through fear and intimidation. And during the offensive if somebody gets caught in the crossfire, SOME people are saying that our boys are gonna have to go infront of an international court to be judged??! If thats why people say that the US is isolating itself from the rest of the world well so be it.

PS: Its a shame others are not feeling me on the gay marriage thing. Its disturbing. Jenks im disappointed in you.

[quote=neur0t0xin64] PS: Its a shame others are not feeling me on the gay marriage thing. Its disturbing. Jenks im disappointed in you.[/quote]

The only shame is the close minded mongoloid thinking of people like yourself.

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Marimba, sorry seems you're thread has been hijacked. . .

I don't get the big deal about gay marriage. Why usually sensible gay men and lesbians wish to choose this issue to battle on is beyond me. I say these comments as a gay man who was involved with gay/queer politics in the UK for nearly 13 years.

I understand the main arguements being laid on the table by activitists in the US and other countries is an arguement of equality, "If they can do it why can't we!" Forgive me, but i don't believe that just because you can get legally married will necessarily mean you have equality in the society you live in. I also don't believe that its the first step for gaining equality.

I believe there are many misguided gay men and lesbians in our world who , wrongly in my opinion, believe that by having a legally recognised marriage the whole world will all of a sudden become less homophobic and welcome all gay men and lesbians into the main stream! HA HA HA HA

The other point i wish to make is that the whole concept of marriage has been discredited since the advent of instant divorces. Marriage no longer means a life long committment (just the growing tide in the rush for pre-nups is proof of this). Its an institution which is entered into with a get out clause already, in many cases, thought of. And in the long term the only people who will benefit from marriage are lawyers!

I came out of the closet some 19 years ago, one of the things i most enjoy about being gay is the fact that i can define my relationships how i want, without reference to society and its discredited institutions. But thats just me.

I understand the basic need in society for each and every one of us to be equal, but this equality shouldn't be just legal, social equality is a much harder battle, one which should be fought before the legal one, becasue once society backs you then the law will naturally follow. And when that does happen, should gay men and lesbians choose to buy into such things as marriage, then great, let them fool themselves that being married is something great!

But thats just my opinion!

^ interesting point of view.

i'm of the understanding however that it's not only a rights issue, but a legal issue as well.

being legally married under the eye of the government gives you certain benefits.

if i get married, my wife will be on my company's insurance, because she's my wife.

gay people don't get this advantage, and it's just one of a long line of things that go along with being married under the law.

i still say, it's a rights issue first. regardless wether it's the most important fight for gay people to be fighting at this moment is irrevelant imo...basically it's out government and society telling citizens what they can and cannot do regarding love and marriage. What are we Nazi's? Have we forgotten the human element behind all of this, or are they just GAYS now? Disturbing.

I understand your point Jenks. Lets looks at the insurance issue. Does your company offer the insurance to non-married heterosexuals? With more and more of heterosexual couple chosing NOT to marry nowadays, surely the fight we should all be having is for partnership rights, which recognise both hetero and gay/lesbian partnerships. Let all of us who choose to live together outside the framework of marriage, but are committed to each other nevertheless, have those same rights. Defacto, no need for marriage!

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

To the legal issue with failing to recognize gay marriage, check out the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision from February:

[quote]Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.

...

In this case, as in Perez and Loving, a statute deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental legal, personal, and social significance--the institution of marriage--because of a single trait: skin color in Perez and Loving, sexual orientation here. As it did in Perez and Loving, history must yield to a more fully developed understanding of the invidious quality of the discrimination.[/quote]

[url]http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf[/url]

:RockOn:

[quote=neur0t0xin64]Yao I never said that Holland is a shitty little country, infact I love Holland.[/quote]

Eh, don't worry. Those were my words. I don't love Holland, even though I wasborn here. Not until we get a government that has balls.

[quote=neur0t0xin64]There are many things to be learned there. But its undeniable the fact that most of the world is hating on the US, acting as if all of a sudden we have a christian unilaterist president, who is acting as a crusader of the world.[/quote]

Actually, whichever way I look at it, I think he is...but I'm not hating on the US. Just Bush. Although I'm still not convinced Kerry is the man...

[quote=neur0t0xin64]Fact is terror groups like Al Queda waged war against the US and our ideology 30 years ago. So now were on the hunt for the agents of death who want to disrupt the the worlds economy through fear and intimidation.[/quote]

Problem is this: terrorism is undeerground, and can only effectively be combated underground. Bush is treating it as a conventional war, disrupting whole countries and economies in his "war on terrorism". Fighting terrorism is a case of intelligence, not plain and brutal violence.

[quote=neur0t0xin64]And during the offensive if somebody gets caught in the crossfire, SOME people are saying that our boys are gonna have to go infront of an international court to be judged??! If thats why people say that the US is isolating itself from the rest of the world well so be it.[/quote]

Why the f*ck is every American acting as if this Court has only been founded to sue Americans???!!! Stop doing that, I"m getting really irritated by that! It is meant for every single individual coming from any of the involved countries. That includes us, Europeans, too. And fact is, that it is and will mostly be used to bring the people on top to justice, not just some soldiers. It's the big guys that committed or ordered horrific war-crimes that go there. Please, please, start realizing that. America's subscribing is not needed to put your guys to the stand, it is mostly a sing of commitment to a fair and good way of performing your military actions or interventions. And, never forget: don't take things like that personal just because it could also affect you.

[quote=neur0t0xin64]PS: Its a shame others are not feeling me on the gay marriage thing. Its disturbing. Jenks im disappointed in you.[/quote]

Sorry dude, guess you're on your own there, but...respect. :RockOn:

Gay marriage - it's about trying to change the language of an institution that traditionally has always a union between a man and a woman.

There's lots wrong with it. For example, once definitions (wording) starts having a different connotation, the interpretation of law (yes, the Constitution) can be interpreted as one may please. And, fortunately, that is not the case - amendments aside, US Constitution's wording has not changed - and one of the primary reasons is traditional connotations ascribed to its wording. THAT is where real problem lies.

I am not against gays having rights heterosexuals posess in marriage-alimony, etc etc? - but it is requisite that name the gay union be something else.

:twisted:

[quote=dohturdima]Gay marriage - it's about trying to change the language of an institution that traditionally has always a union between a man and a woman.

There's lots wrong with it. For example, once definitions (wording) starts having a different connotation, the interpretation of law (yes, the Constitution) can be interpreted as one may please. And, fortunately, that is not the case - amendments aside, US Constitution's wording has not changed - and one of the primary reasons is traditional connotations ascribed to its wording. THAT is where real problem lies.

I am not against gays having rights heterosexuals posess in marriage-alimony, etc etc? - but it is requisite that name the gay union be something else.

:twisted:[/quote]

You know, you're right. If we start letting gay people get "married," then the Constitution and all of the laws regarding marriage will be interpreted to apply to gay people, too. Uh, is this a bad thing? :unsure:

People opposed to gay marriage often argue that it is essentially a matter of semantics, that allowing civil unions is OK, but calling it marriage is not. We've learned over the years is this country that "separate but equal" is anything but -- "civil unions" are a backdoor way, if you'll pardon the pun, of creating a "separate but equal" way of distinguishing between heterosexual and gay love and relationships.

For those of you that oppose gay marriage, what is it you are afraid will happen? The gaying of America? :Gay:

I would add that your assessment of the significance of the language of the Constitution staying the same doesn't really tell the whole story. Amongst those that are in the business of interpreting the Constitution (i.e., the Courts), there are essentially two camps -- strict constructionists, who apply the Constitution strictly as it was written, and another group of jurists that are mindful that times have changed some and that it needs to be read and interpreted in light of the current times. Of course, I'm fairly certain that "marriage" appears nowhere in the Constitution, so it is largely a moot point as to that, but the point is that these documents can be validly interpreted while taking into account the current thoughts of the nation.

[quote=dohturdima]Gay marriage - it's about trying to change the language of an institution that traditionally has always a union between a man and a woman.

There's lots wrong with it. For example, once definitions (wording) starts having a different connotation, the interpretation of law (yes, the Constitution) can be interpreted as one may please. And, fortunately, that is not the case - amendments aside, US Constitution's wording has not changed - and one of the primary reasons is traditional connotations ascribed to its wording. THAT is where real problem lies.

I am not against gays having rights heterosexuals posess in marriage-alimony, etc etc? - but it is requisite that name the gay union be something else.

:twisted:[/quote]

you make some good points, but i think that we have to move forward in our thinking about this issue.

it's not fair to gay people that they can't get married.

so what if our heritage said that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women. do we not have the power to change it?

i think we do. it's just a matter of time that it will get changed and the people that oppose it will be obsolete in their thinking.