Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to Petrous's blog Subscribe


Special Features


For Moder8, as I want to provide my answer to the question why?
A truthful answer...

the use of 'you' is not Moder8 but a generalization.

Please tolerate my response with this issue (as I do with some other specific ones).

You are right that the separation of church and state is in existence in the US and that one doesn't want my religious views to be law.

What I consider moral is different from you (the general you, no one in particular).

If I had to vote on whether to legalize immorality, I'll vote no.

True, many of my views are based on my religious views - then again, it's my life's experience that guides my views. Some issues, like whether a dog should be on a leash has nothing to do with religion, and so not all my decisions are religious based.

I understand why others don't want my religious views to be the law.
I simply don't want immoral activity to be legal. What I deem to be immoral.

Is that too hard to understand?

However, I also understand the rule of law. If the law states the right must be given, that the actions must be legalized, because the Constitution overrides my personal belief- so be it.

See, that wasn't so hard.

I've been on a jury where I had to place my bigotry at the door, my personal beliefs at the door, my conscience at the door.

Will I abide by the judge's interpretation of the law? Will I hold my responsibility as a juror above myself? Yes. I so I have.

Do I hate being in that position? Yes. Is this my country? Yes. Will I fight for the rights of others, despite my disgust of their behavior? Yes.

I have to add this thought and I can't remember who said it -paraphrased:
I could believe in God or not. So, if there is no God, then I prepared myself, through good behavior and morals, for nothing.
But, if there is a God, and I was wrong, then the result is far worse.
For being immoral, than living otherwise, would mean hell to pay.

To wager my soul against legalizing immorality? I'll have to accept the law to violate morality, not me, in that decision. I'll confess to my Creator the path I chose, not the path I tolerated.

RSTY, the information being used to forward the cause to Iraq was not credible. However, at the time all the information was coming out - it sounded credible. You have to remember what happened before the rattling of swords.

Remember this(from wiki):

The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the nation of Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power),[1] and persisted in part, including reparations to Kuwait, through the present.[2][3][4]

Think about this. The sanctions were from 1990 until 2003. That's thirteen years. When did Bush become president? 2001-2009.

So for 10 years, the public around the world saw Iraq as evil. Iraq was punished. But, why didn't the punishment end after one year? Three years? Five years? Ten years?

If you asked the US Congress, Iraq was not cooperating. They needed to be punished. They weren't 'telling everything' or 'showing everything'. they were hiding something. Most people had that opinion because the UN had to keep going in.

I remember those years.

I don't think they needed such an excuse used to attack Iraq. After 9/11 Iraq was an easy scapegoat for anger. The US public wanted blood.
Russia played in Afghanistan - remember how that played out?
As a war game, Iraq was an easier task.

Sometimes I wonder if all this fighting we do is to make sure our combat troops are combat-ready for a bigger one.

Finding out later about the intel? It's a lot like today's administration. Eventually we find out more and find out they overplayed their hand, too.

There were few in Congress that paused and voted 'no'. Look at today's Congress. They're doing it again.

I believe in non-intervention. The world must resolve it's problems and we have to stop being one of them.

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

42 Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.

There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

Trade, yes. Allies, no. Let other nations resolve their neighbor's problem. Nonintervention, not isolation, open for trade, not arms or protection.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable