They have 100% tolerance for the right of Muslims to broadcast their holy prayers through Christian neighborhoods.

Are you reffering to that case in Michigan?

You know the call to prayer is practically analogous to church bells right?

They even support the “right” of members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association – a group of pedophiles who should be arrested on general principles – to be recognized as a legitimate group.

Where?

And it just so happens that heterosexual males tend in most cases, to be better at killing people and breaking things that women or gay men.

Jeffrey Dahmer would beg to differ, but either way you are talking out of your ass.

I really don't know where to start with this except "Steve, go back on your medications."

I find it interesting that someone that obviously aligns themselves with the right is now defending the "don't ask, don' tell" policy that Clinton put into place and then later goes on to insult him.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't about not disclosing your sexual orintation, its about not disclosing that you're gay. Those are two very different things.

If you're going to play the part of the "truth bringer" and call them dems the party that supports NAMBLA, I'll refer to Bush as our cokehead, alocoholic president. After all, i'm only telling the truth.

Well, you know, two definitions of "Liberal" are loose and approximate. I've yet to find one liberal who isn't a walking double standard. Sometimes I think they disagree with Conservatives just for the sake of pissing us off. I'll be damned if I live in America with a President like John Kerry who votes 27 times to use my money to murder babies. Tax payers shouldn't pay for abortions. No one should. It should be illegal. It's no better than hiring a hitman. Liberals jump all over Scott Peterson for murdering a fetus, yet they vote for and further the murder of fetuses. I don't understand em but am impressed by your page and I'll be back.

Federal law trumps campus policy, end of story.

Time to remind these colleges that their funding comes from the pockets of people in the real world and not their little socialist utopian campus fantasyland.

Matt: Don't ask don't tell is exactly that: We don't want to know what your "sexual orientation" is because your "sexual orientation" isn't relevant to the mission of the U.S. Military in the least. And if you believe it is, that's a clear indication that the military is not a good line of work for you.

the pockets of people in the real world and not their little socialist utopian campus fantasyland.

The only times Graum has been in a University he was cleaning the toilets.

One of my biggest Pet peeves is the Conservative's narrow vision of being "Pro Life". Give me a break. This world is so over populated, we are criminal in not being mindful of birth control. That is the magic word. Birth Control. No one is Pro Abortion. I really believe that. The women who have abortions surely would rather have not become pregnant in the first place. Do a poll of your friends. Ask how many of their children were planned. You will find manybe one of two. 98% of all pregnancies are unplanned. 98% of all pregnancies are welcomed and cherished. The babies may not be coming at the most convienient time, but we are happy and welcoming of the new babies anyway. Now getting to my point. I wish all the Evangelical Christians who are so Pro Life, would spend a fragment of the effort and time in promoting family planning. They just have got to get their heads out of the sand, and realize that family planning is so much more important to abolishing abortions, that reversing Roe vs. Wade. George Bush is a fine President. He is so honest, and so very religious. He could do so much more for this issue if he would speak towards something as simple as "family planning". It doesn't make any sense to want to get rid of Roe vs Wade, without going to the root of the problem. Pregnancies. Promote Family Planning, and it will all take care of itself. I had a Liberal friend of mine tell me that Republicans are such hypocrates. The yell and scream for the rights of the unborn. Once the unborn is "born", the Republicans are no where to be found. The more I thought about it, she was right. The schools are a mess. Healthcare is only there for the upper half of this country and the cost of living is so sky high, no one can take care of the kids they have now.

To the right-wingers that's posted; "double-standard, double-speak????"

Try reading again what you posted, then join Dr. Bowers the Psycho, in the idiot circle.

If the gay/lesbian military service member performs "Duty, Honor and Country" without expressing their sexual orientation, all is well. If they do express their sexual orientation, they are no longer qualified to perform "Duty, Honor and Country?"

I understand the law, and I also understand this is another "confirmation example" for the village idiot. Yes Steve it's confirmation!

PS. Grammy, where do the supposed intellegent right-wing go for their education? This just more mentally confused double-speak?

...and VET, Liberals believe in critical thinking and most resist blind obedience.

I don't care if the college considers the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy to be discriminatory or not, and I'm not going to debate it one way or the other. That's not the point.

The fact of the matter is, as the law stands, a college that accepts public funds cannot prevent military recruitment on campus without losing their funding. Period.

If the faculty feels they can't work for a university that allows military recruitment, they're welcome to resign.

Steve - "If don't ask, don't tell" is really about not disclosing _any_ sexual orientation, then has anyone been kicked out of the military for revealing that they're straight?

I hope the universities retain their independence. Once upon a time Republicans would have agreed - remember when republicans were against big government? Now they have two branches and they can't get enough.

"remember when republicans were against big government?"

Remember when universities promoted freedom for all points of view instead of trying to censor and ban anything that didn't vibe with the leftist viewpoints of the faculty?

bigotry is routinely censored and banned almost everywhere in our country.

A person can change his or her opinion about any matter after a good discussion, a visit to a certain place (country, city whatever), a decent article or book, a documentary etc. It is typical of right wingers to not be critical. They have something in their mind and don't listen to anyone. What they believe is simply the truth. That is amazing because if you're really concerned about our world, our society, you constantly get new information and it's only logical you learn to adjust your thinking. That doesn't mean however your not trustworthy. In fact your more trustworthy.

In the case of abortion I would like to ask Republican Vet and other right wingers if they're against abortion in all cases. For example in the case of a young teenager who was raped? And Steve, is your descriptions of homosexuals "large hairy man parading the streets of major cities". Is that the way you think about homosexuals?

NYMaggie, Planned Parenthood has been promoted ad nauseum, it doesn't stop unwanted pregnancies,because they also promote sexual activity among teens and unmarried women. Of course, the women having abortions would rather have not become pregnant in the first place. How does that prove that they aren't pro-abortion? As to your assertion that republicans are nowhere to be found once a baby is born, that is simply not true. There are many christian pregnancy centers out there that will totally help a girl through it. Perhaps they aren't all republicans, but since they are pro-life, it's a good bet that they are. The schools are "a mess", because of libs. I don't consider myself in the "upper-half" of the country, yet I have healthcare. We work for it. The cost of living is high in some areas of the country, and much less in others. So are you for repealing Roe v.Wade if we " get to the root of the problem", and reduce unwanted pregnancies by birth control? Because you know there would still be those pregnancies, right? By the way, why do libs always think everyone who is pro-life is an "Evangelical Christian"? I am not, I am a Roman Catholic, and you are a lib, aren't you.

Getting back on topic,of course Universities are intolerant of any conservative views. Cesspools of leftist bigotry. Institutes of Higher Learning indeed.

....and they surely don't allow others to share the rights of free speech as witnessed this weekend in Boston....THIS is their POV on "who gets to speak freely":

"Free speech should not cover such a stupid bunch of racists," said Steve Kirschbaum, a member of the International Action Center[AND union activist], which organized the protest against the white power group. "You don't ignore these people. You confront them and stop them. That's what should have happened in 1933."

...and this isn't just a "member" of the IAC saying "who gets to speak freely"....he's on of their high-level organizers in the Boston area.

I don't like what theses misguided dinks have to say....but I defended their right to say what they feel they gotta say.....and I ignore it....just like I ignore certain other protests that are irrelevant.

Sarge is always there to defend the nazis in a clutch.

nthood has been promoted ad nauseum, it doesn't stop unwanted pregnancies,because they also promote sexual activity among teens and unmarried women.

Where?

There are many christian pregnancy centers out there that will totally help a girl through it.

Then according to people ive talked to, they vanish.

Go fuck yourself idiot....I have never defended the Nazis or the actions of the Nazis and you cannot point to where I ever did because it's just a product of your #2 obsession......or do you share the notion (with your lefty Fascists/Gestapo) that these people should be forced to stop speaking freely in the United States? ...that thse people don't share the rights guaranteed to YOU and defended by ME?

Childish punk....

Can someone answer my question. To all right wingers: do you believe abortion should be banned under ALL circumstance?

Sarge you live in a state of apoplexy, and nevertheless I have seen you say morekind things about Nazis then you have ever said about any Liberal or Democrat.

YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD ME SAY A SINGLE KIND THING ABOUT THE NAZIS (want the link for me to prove it to you for the 4th time oh child of no respect?).....not once not ever....flounder away in your obsession #2.

Maggie...."no one is pro abortion"...well, you need to talk to my girlfriend's Planned Parenthood friend, who is very much pro-abortion.

Sorry timmy....with the qualifier of "ALL", I refuse to answer the question, as it is leading....and I won't be "led" where you want me to go (as a "right-winger"), so why don't you just come out and say what you want to say without trying to catch a "right-winger" in a hypocritical statement?

YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD ME SAY A SINGLE KIND THING ABOUT THE NAZIS

Gentlemanly Sarge?

And you never did take it back.

Can someone answer my question. To all right wingers: do you believe abortion should be banned under ALL circumstance?

Absolutely not. If I could jump in an HG Wells Time Machine™ I would personally supervise the scraping of your mother's vile womb.

I'VE NEVER CALLED THE NAZIS "GENTLEMANLY"....so why the hell would I need to take it back? You're the one with the obsession #2. The fact that you continue to lie about it is quite telling and childish......and the fact that those here that generally agree with you (or at least have the same sort of leftward thinking) don't come running to your defense when you're feeding your obsessions is ALSO quite telling. YOU...ARE...ALL...ALONE...

Would you care to see the link(s) involved or are you gonna keep lying to feed your pathetic and childish obsessions?

Hey redneck, where were you? I actually missed you buddy! I am really serious about that. I am not fooling around. Your way better a that. I missed your sensitive and tender remarks. Glad you're back my dearest!

Sarge, this ain't a war. This is not an ambush, it's merely a question. Relax soldier! You can answer the question or choose not to. The question was if abortion should be illegal under ALL circumstances. I believe it should be resticted, but not forbidden. If a young girl gets raped by a dirty old man I don't believe she should be punished even more by being forced to give birth to his offspring, do you?

Tim, I will answer your question. Speaking only for myself, abortion should be illegal unless the mother's life is in danger, as it always was before Roe v. Wade. THAT is how you protect the sanctity of life. My mom was a staunch conservative, and one day, when I was a young idiotic, idealistic lib, I asked her how would she feel if one of her daughters[there were 5],came to her and said they were raped by a black guy, and wanted an abortion. I figured that THAT would get her. No. She said that the baby was still an innocent, and didn't deserve to die. Later in life I came to agreee with her. People, we are talking about LIFE, human life. You can't just snuff it out because it's inconvenient. So Tim, there is my answer.

I'VE NEVER CALLED THE NAZIS "GENTLEMANLY"

Wait maybe my memory slipped. You called them Gentlemen right? Or they behaved like Gentlemen something to that effect.

Perhaps this thread could have been called

Intolerance for the Patriots Who Want to Defend Our Nation

Don't ask don't tell is an absurd policy. It’s stopping patriots who want to serve their country serving their country.

I appreciate what Graumagus says about the law trumping campus policy but students love to protest and I'd say this is part of learning whether they are right or wrong. I wouldn't crush this out of them just yet.

Just for the record Steve the assessment process for the military has been applied to gay and straight groups - the gays scored higher ie they were by these assessments considered more suitable to be in the forces than the straights. I wish I could quote the research but the book that I got this information from is hiding somewhere in my flat - I’ll keep digging and try to find it - I think I'm right in saying the tests were actually done either by the army or as research commissioned by them.

I think the nazis are good at putting on parades.

Tim, being a guy, I don't expect you to understand this, but, guess what, the baby is also HER offspring. Most women feel like their baby is theirs. Not simply defined by who the father is. If she is too young to handle a child, there are places she can go to get help in placing the baby for adoption. Murder is not the answer. It will dog her for the rest of her life.

Hey redneck, where were you? I actually missed you buddy! I am really serious about that. I am not fooling around. Your way better a that. I missed your sensitive and tender remarks. Glad you're back my dearest!

You're right. I came on too strong. Earlier today I got a nasty email from someone with a hotmail provider. At the time of the post I thought it was from you.

I don't think it was anymore - if it was I would have been slammed much better ;-)

Lisa - Abortion isn't murder. Please stop refering to it as such.

Sorry to continue to burst your little pathetic obsession-driven bubble, ignorant little pathetic child....I have NEVER referred to the Nazis in a kind manner with a single good word towards the Nazis.....EVER.....and you're continuing to lie about what I DID say just goes to show you have a complete clinically verifiable obsession #2. Seek help.

.....and matt, ANY abortion after the 5th month can be called nothing but MURDER....or have you not held a 3+ month premature baby like I have? The rest of 'em, y'all can go back and forth about....but anything after the 5th month is a human being capable of living outside of the mother. I've seen one, held her, and watched her grow for the 12 years that I knew her into a normal, healthy little girl that some here would advocate that the mother had a "right" to murder right up until a natural, full-term birth.

Sarge - I agree, if a baby can live outside of the mother then it most certainly is alive and shouldn't be killed. Still, I don't think we were talking abouta third trimester abortion...

I have NEVER referred to the Nazis in a kind manner with a single good word towards the Nazis.....EVER...

Hmmm you said they behaved like Gentlemen. Maybe you got confused by the word "camps" and thought they were served tea or something.

5th term is 2nd trimester, not 3rd.

Err...5th month.

I hate to get back to the subject of the post here, but I have a couple of comments on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. DADT as we call it, has always been military policy in the U.S. Until Bill Clinton it was a POLICY, and not a LAW. He codified it into the UCMJ, so that it could not be handled any differently. Up until that point, if it could be ignored, and was not detrimental to morale, it could occasionally be ignored. However, now that it is UCMJ law, people are being discharged because they have to be. You can't ignore the UCMJ. If it's suspected and reported, it must be investigated. That's what you get when you try to use the military for "social expiriments". The military is not mainstream society, and should not be treated as such. Had he ever served, he might have known that. Bill Clinton thought he was doing homosexuals a favor, but he was actually making it more difficult for them.

Intolerance for the Patriots Who Defend Our Nation In this country, leftists are completely tolerant of the right of minors to have abortions without their parent’s consent. They have 100% tolerance for the right of Muslims to broadcast their holy prayers through Christian neighborhoods. They overwhelmingly support the right of child molesters to live in society unmolested (pun intended) after they’ve “done their time.” They support wholeheartedly the right of large hairy men to parade through the streets of major cities in garters and fishnet stockings simulating sex acts and loudly proclaiming gay rights. They are foursquare behind the “right” of illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and government aid. They even support the “right” of members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association – a group of pedophiles who should be arrested on general principles – to be recognized as a legitimate group. But let the Reserve Officer’s Training Corps try to recruit young would-be defenders of freedom on a publicly funded state university campus and all hell breaks loose. At least that’s what the deal is at the University of California Santa Barbara campus where they just held a “town meeting” the sole purpose of which was to get the ROTC thrown off campus ostensibly because the ROTC doesn’t want to know what a recruit’s sexual orientation is: Charles Bazerman, chair of the UCSB Dept. of Education, helped organize the town hall meeting as well. He said the Solomon Amendment, approved by Congress in 1996, prompted the meeting. The amendment states that campuses must allow military recruiters on the campus in order to be eligible for federal funding. Bazerman said the military’s policy forces gay service members to hide their identities. “The campus has a non-discrimination policy and as part of that, we ought not to allow recruiting of organizations that discriminate on campus,” Bazerman said. “The ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy’ of the military is putting gays, lesbians, etcetera in living conditions where they can’t be open to who they are and must misrepresent [themselves] and hide.” The idea that these folks “must misrepresent themselves and hide” is utterly ridiculous. What part of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is it that these pacifist liberal jackasses don’t understand? The military isn’t about what orifice a person chooses to use for sex with what gender in order to get their rocks off. It’s about protecting our country from enemies foreign and domestic. And a person’s “sexual orientation” has nothing to do with the mission of the military to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with the goal of protecting our freedom. In other words if you keep your sexual preference to yourself, you won’t have any problems. But because the military apparently doesn’t want to be inclusive of the aforementioned big hairy men in garter belts and fishnet stockings simulating sex acts in the streets, they apparently aren’t “inclusive” enough for Bazerman and the rest of the lefties running UCSB. The belief that people of any “sexual orientation” who define themselves solely by the way they choose to have sex don’t belong in the military just doesn’t square with the UCSB “non-discrimination” policy. Too bad for the commie bureaucrats that the UCSB “non-discrimination” policy doesn’t square with the law -- specifically the Solomon Amendment of to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1995 which states: (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access to Campus.--No funds described in subsection (d)(1) may be provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be available for student aid) to an institution of higher education (including any subelement of such institution) if the Secretary of Defense determines that that institution (or any subelement of that institution) has a policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents-- (1) the Secretary of a military department from maintaining, establishing, or operating a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in accordance with section 654 of this title and other applicable Federal laws) at that institution (or any subelement of that institution); or (2) a student at that institution (or any subelement of that institution) from enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher education.

A famous talk show host once said the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. A truer statement about the military has rarely been spoken. Another statement about the military that is equally as true is that the purpose of the military is NOT to be a place for social experimentation and tolerance for “diversity” of sexual preference and gender equity. The reason why we have survived as free nation for 230 years is because we kill people and break things better than anyone else. And it just so happens that heterosexual males tend in most cases, to be better at killing people and breaking things that women or gay men. “They even support the “right” of members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association – a group of pedophiles who should be arrested on general principles – to be recognized as a legitimate group. Where?” Um, Yeah- If you don’t know about your own side, you’ve got serious problems. The ACLU defended NAMBLA and it’s ‘rights’. How advocating criminal behavior is a right is beyond me.

I think there should be a rule here- if you don’t QUOTE people, don’t make comments about what they said. WAY, WAY too much space is wasted on this site to people arguing about what someone said. Please spare us.

Matt, we can refer to abortion as murder and you can call it whatever you want. Please don’t tell us what terminology to use just because it makes you uncomfortable. Now, as for the subject of gays in the military- I think the recent events at Abu Ghraib show us reason enough why gays and women should not be in combat units or combat support units. No, it’s not that I think women and gays are more likely to commit atrocities, but rather, it seems clear that one of the problems there was the relationship between PFC Englund and Spec. Graner. Those sorts of relationships are problematic sto say the least in situations where romantic feelings may interfere with doing what is best for the safety of the entire unit. Now those of you who can’t wait to assault me for taking this position, Neanderthal conservative that I am, please understand that I would never approve of this as a general rule for the military, or government jobs- but combat units are different. It would also allow us to ditch the ridiculous official ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, as you would then be free to be homosexual in other units in the military. Oh, and no it isn’t discrimination, it’s pragmatism. Please don’t compare it to the old segregated military- it’s a rather different scenario. Romantic emotions (reciprocated or not) are not so easy to avoid or overcome, whereas racism is clearly able to be overcome- after all, the military became desegregated before the rest of our society. I don’t see any point in defending DADT.

Don't flatter yourself redneck I only email intresting people. I did email some people on PME, but you're not included.

I think a very important aspect of life should be love. You can't expect a girl who was raped to love her baby. If she wants to keep the baby that should be her decision. It is HER body. If she doesn't want to keep it, that should be HER decision too. Of course the month in which an abortion takes place is very important. After 5 months it would be wrong, but you don't have to wait that long.

What bothers me though is the death penalty. Same christian logic should be applied to the death penalty. Forgiveness is a very important aspect of Christianity. Now I am in favor of the death penalty, so don't attack me on that, but you speak so beautiful about life, it really feels so good. I'm moved. Why not forgive at least some criminals than? That doesn't mean you're letting them go, it does mean you don't kill them right away. Nice christian attitude. Your whole warm speech is just fake, isn't it? Pro-Life? You're funny people!

I HAVE NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT ABOUT THE NAZIS....YOU ARE LYING, AS USUAL. Stop saying what you think I said and actually QUOTE ME...WITH THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION...so that the one or two lefties here that actually pay attention to what you say can see you for the lying sack of shiite that you are.....the rest of us already know that fact. So keep on feeding those pathetic childish obsessions of yours so the rest can see how much of an ass you are.

matt....pay attention to the pro-abortion lobby and you'll see that THEY are talking about anything up to and including just before the head passes through the canal.....AND without the parent's consent or knowledge....AND across state lines...AND paid for by the gubmint.....AND some Democrats go along with them. In order to tend to your vague statement of "abortion isn't murder" accurately, qualifiers needed to be added as to what kind of abortion you're talking about.

thanks MJohnson, and MattK, you said "abortion" isn't murder, and I should stop saying so. Then you go on to say that if the baby can live outside the mother's body, it IS killing. Because the baby is , in your mind, ALIVE. The baby is ALIVE the whole time it is developing! It's not DEAD is it? What a convoluted notion you have about how human beings are created, and how they grow in the womb.

So MattK, then you are for banning partial birth abortions, though your party continues to fight it?

then you are for banning partial birth abortions, though your party continues to fight it?

Lisa did you watch the 2nd debate between Kerry and W?

Kerry said he would have vote for the ban except that it was written as to make no exceptions for the health of the mother.

Pretty much the only time they happen is in those cases.

that's bullshit umyeah. The so-called "health" of the mother meant mental health, so that any emotionally "fragile" mom- to- be could say, I can't take it, get rid of it. It most certainly didn't mean "health" as in life or death. That has always been protected. That is NOT the times that it happens.

LIE, LIE, LIE...that's all UY can do to feed his obsessions. I have NEVER SAID THAT THE NAZIS BEHAVED LIKE GENTLEMEN......EVER. Keep up the lies.

Yeah SArge, he's really weird isn't he?

Kerry would NEVER have voted against "dilation and excisioin" (nice fun soundint term isn't it?)....because his base would be apeshit about it. You just buy into his lies...good for you...a liar buying into the lies of a politician...QUOTE ME INSTEAD OF LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAY DIPFUCK.

The so-called "health" of the mother meant mental health, so that any emotionally "fragile" mom- to- be could say,

Got a link, I never saw anything like that.

NEVER SAID THAT THE NAZIS BEHAVED LIKE GENTLEMEN......EVER.

Im sure you did, you said they fought like Gentlemen. Is that even possible? Especially considering what they did to so many unarmed helpless people.

Sarge, Lisa - Just because I think something is wrong doesn't mean that I think it should be coded into legislation. Some of you also think that it is wrong not to go to church but certainly no one is going to be punished for that. There is a difference between the moral code I live by and the moral code I expect others to live by.

Lisa - Yes, the baby is "alive" while its developing. My hand is alive in the same manner. i.e., neither can survive on their own. Lisa, you seem to be taking the argument that a child is alive the second that eggs and sperm meet (development starts). Yet at that moment there is no awareness - the complexity of the cell at that point is about the same as a chicken egg. Its completely arbitrary to chose this point as the one where life starts - after all, the egg existed moments later. Are you against fertility treatments which create several fertilized eggs, yet some are tossed? Seems that by your definition of where life starts, you would need to be.

Hi Chad,

Yes I know it was Clinton’s idea to put DADT into law. Clinton’s dumb idea. I don’t think it was ignored much before – perhaps by a few individuals as I’m sure there are some cases of some people turning a blind eye now but the culture is on the whole wasn’t and isn’t conducive to this.

Hi Doug,

New rules that you think we should post by to save space on this site, hmn you don’t seem to want to save too much space. Thanks for the suggestion; I look forward to your views on punishment for breaking your rules.

Re Englund and Graner. Graner was a man 15 years her senior and very definitely senior in terms of command. He was the one in charge of the high security cells and he was the one who allowed and encouraged her to break rules and come over to the cell block. Whoever gave the initial orders (if any were given) it seems clear that Englund’s conduct was instigated by this superior officer if not direct instructions from him. This man was clearly the one misusing his power in this situation. Then of course after they leave Englund has a child that this man hasn’t even seen.

So you’re example of why women and gays should be kept out of the military is based on the abuse of power (in so many ways) by this heterosexual man. Do you think by using Graner as an example perhaps your making more of an example of why heterosexual men should not be admitted to the front line? Doug sees a straight man screw up and reasons the thing to do is make sure there are no women or gays in the fighting or advanced units. You may or may not be a “Neanderthal conservative” I don’t know your view well enough yet, but you certainly put together a very daft argument here.

Ooops! Mea culpa- a rather inadvertant LARGE paste-in. I'm pro-capital punishment, but I think a good slap on the wrist is punishment enough...

Brit- you did exactly what I asked not be done- I said it wasn't an issue of who is more or less likely to commit atrocities, let me add also abuse power of command. I saw a straight man use romantic connections to advance bad behavior, and I contend that if all the others in his unit were straight men, perhaps a critical mass of people willing to go along with that behavior would not have been reached. Graner had Englund due to her romantic involvement with him, and then- and this is conjecture, I admit, bring others in, who figure if they agree it is alright, then maybe it is. My contention wasn't that straight men were better than women or gays- some people are good and some aren't and most of us are in-between, but removing one possible source of major problems in units where decisions are quite possibly life or death seems a good idea to me. YOU seem to want to read into it that Hetero bad- Homo good, I'm trying to steer AWAY from that.

Oh, Tim, It is perfectly consistant to be pro-life Christian and pro death penalty. I know its a rather nuaced position for you to understand, I've seen so many posts where you present your views of others as caricatures to fit into your little pigeon holes... I value life- thus pro-life. It is sacred to me. An appropriate punishment for taking the life of someone else may be forfiture of your own. As a society, it establishes the absolute primacy of right to life. As for being Christian and pro-life, the whole religion is founded on an act of capital punishment. Also, if God wanted us to stop capital punishment, why, when Jesus was hanging on the cross, and one of the criminals behind him mocked him, and the other said to the criminal that they DESERVED to be there, but Jesus did not, did Jesus not say 'no, you don't deserve this, no one does...'??? He just told the one who believed in him that he'd see him in heaven.

Hi Doug,

Darn I just don’t seem to be able to stick to your rules do I. First you don’t get to tell us the responses you think are appropriate to your pearls of wisdom. Second where did I say heterosexual men are more likely to commit atrocities (Abu Ghraib wasn’t an atrocity of course) or abuses of power than anyone else? The idea that Abu Ghraib happened because of Ms Englund’s presence is completely basely. You talk as if the without her presence it would have been a regular prison experience. I pointed out that she wasn’t actually the one with the authority or the one who instigated the events – in other words what ever was going on would almost certainly happened with or without her presence there.

While Graner and England have been the most high profile of the people involved there were many others involved in Abu Ghraib is it your contention that Ms Englund had enticed these men with her sexual wiles to participate? Nobody else seems to be saying that this then teenager was spinning some sort of sexual spell over the others – but you may want to contend that. Or do you maintain that the other men involved in were held in thrall of homosexual desire for Graner and that to sublimate this they decided that the best thing to do was get their prisoners to simulate homosexual acts. As far as I am aware they were all straight too. You admit conjecture that these two were the first to entice others into this behaviour – why? What shred of evidence do you have for this?

My guess would be that Graner was asked to do this by some of the interrogators, if not then probably because they were bored and had no respect for their prisoners – I don’t know which of these is true if either of them. If it’s either of these reasons Abu Ghraib would have happened whether Englund was present or not. You wanting to link Abu Ghraib to why women and gays shouldn’t be allowed in the front line or in support roles is completely spurious so yes I will point this out. There is no link between these two subjects at all. I understand that gay men used to be executed in one culture to prevent earthquakes I wouldn’t say you were going for the execution aspect but your logic seems to be as sound.

Finally you say about me

YOU seem to want to read into it that Hetero bad- Homo good, I'm trying to steer AWAY from that.

Yes this is absolutely true my Army is made up entirely of women and gays. I am in fact a Bond villain. We live in a hollowed out volcano (in east London) and plan to take over the world. The lesbians are excellent at looking after my squad of white attack cats who are as we speak tunnelling into Downing Street so that I may abduct Tony Blair. How very noble of you to steer clear of my evil plans – oh hang on that’s all bollocks I never said Graner was typical of straight people and there aren’t even any gays in this story to say were good – so I couldn’t have found any good things they had done. Still no need to tell the lesbian cat trainers that – they’ve worked so hard on those cats.

BTW America, Englund sounds far to much like the way football fans chant England. Can you organise it so your nest screw up is called Applepie or something.

“The idea that Abu Ghraib happened because of Ms Englund’s presence is completely basely.” Seems that I’m not the only one who occasionally misspells her name. What on earth does “completely basely” mean? I didn’t make any rules about reading my post, but I did warn against reading it as Homo bad - Hetero good, because that wasn’t my point. You followed with this: “So your example of why women and gays should be kept out of the military is based on the abuse of power (in so many ways) by this heterosexual man. Do you think by using Graner as an example perhaps your (sic) making more of an example of why heterosexual men should not be admitted to the front line? Doug sees a straight man screw up and reasons the thing to do is make sure there are no women or gays in the fighting or advance units.” Graners sexual preference was irrelevant in my argument- he could’ve been gay and England a man, or he could’ve been Lesbian and England also- the point was that the prospect of romantic involvement (reciprocated or not) is a problem in military situations. Your attempt to restate my argument is rather peculiarly made. I saw a man take advantage of romantic attachment, and said the conditions that can lead to it should be avoided. I was conjecturing as far as the dynamic of what happened, but I freely admit that. My point was that often, when a group of people are involved in bad behavior there is a critical person or persons who initiate the behavior- open the door to the darker areas of our humanity. I believe Graner was that person, and England helped to make it seem o.k. by her complicity. I may be wrong, but it is a behavioral pattern that certainly occurs, and may have occurred here. How you can speak with such certainty that if she’d not been there it would’ve happened anyway, why is your conjecture more valid than mine? When I conjecture, I’m at fault for presenting conjecture, when you speak as omniscient, it’s o.k.??!! Also, I never said her sexuality was the causal factor, nor did I imply that the other men were ‘enthralled’ by Graner. You keep turning it into a sexuality issue, I am focused on the human relations issues. Abu Ghraib just happened to be an example of a confluence of behavioral and relational problems in a military unit that everyone here would know about, and so could be discussed. If you can’t see that, then maybe you need to get out of the volcano more often.

Doug - "An eye for an eye" is hardly a way to improve society. Why should we spend millions of dollars to lock people up when we could simply imprison them for life. I'm glad you bring jesus into this - who would jesus condemn to death? Where in the Bible does Jesus extract a punishment equal to an injustice done to him?

The crucifiction of jesus has many different levels of importance, but capital punishment is not near the top. Didn't Jesus give himself freely so that our sins may be absolved? Most people killed by capital punishment don't chose it.

Further, why would you use roman law for justification of our our legal system? The Romans were know for their brutal inforcement of law, not their fairness.

Brit,

You're Omar Quadhafi?

Mattk, who the hell brought up roman law?

Okay, Matt- prepare to see things in a new light: “Doug - "An eye for an eye" is hardly a way to improve society.” An eye for an eye was a TREMENDOUS advance in civilization. Prior that edict, punishment was typically WORSE than the crime committed. Eye for an Eye put limits on punishment, which I presume you favor. “Why should we spend millions of dollars to lock people up when we could simply imprison them for life.” Why do base your judgment of what is proper punishment on how much it costs? Rather crass, no? “I'm glad you bring jesus into this - who would jesus condemn to death? Where in the Bible does Jesus extract a punishment equal to an injustice done to him?” I don’t believe Jesus exacted (not extracted) any punishments on earth- although he did say to render unto Ceasar what was Ceasars- this referred not only to taxes, but to the authority of society over the individual. Certainly Jesus did remark on the ultimate punishment- eternal damnation, and warned that many could be subject to it. “The crucifiction of jesus has many different levels of importance, but capital punishment is not near the top. Didn't Jesus give himself freely so that our sins may be absolved? Most people killed by capital punishment don't chose it.” True, it is nowhere near the top of the important issues confronted in the crucifixion- but the subject brought up earlier was capital punishment, remember?- I’m just trying to stay on subject. “Further, why would you use roman law for justification of our our legal system? The Romans were know for their brutal inforcement of law, not their fairness.” I didn’t suggest anywhere that we should emulate Roman law. I simply presented a point that Jesus didn’t bother to speak out against capital punishment- the brutality of the Romans is irrelevant.

Sssssh MJ,

I thought we were all semi deranged world leaders - aren't you really Turkmenbashi. I know Radical Redneck is Castro, Sarge is Kofi Annan and Um Yeah is Mugabe. I was sure I was told you were Turkmenbashi.

Hi Doug,

Completely basely = completely baseless

What I said was

“she wasn’t actually the one with the authority or the one who instigated the events – in other words what ever was going on would almost certainly happened with or without her presence there.”

Englund or England wasn't the pivotal figure, Graner was (or at least seems to be). It seems likely that it would've happened whether or not she was there since "she wasn’t actually the one with the authority or the one who instigated the events".

The romantic involvement between England and Graner is a nice media human interest story but there is no reason to link that and the subsequent events for "she wasn’t actually the one with the authority or the one who instigated the events" and you have offered nothing to indicate that her presence provoked Graner.

You said

"How you can speak with such certainty that if she’d not been there it would’ve happened anyway, why is your conjecture more valid than mine? When I conjecture, I’m at fault for presenting conjecture, when you speak as omniscient, it’s o.k.??!!"

I haven't really put forward a coherent view of what happened hence me saying -

"My guess would be that Graner was asked to do this by some of the interrogators, if not then probably because they were bored and had no respect for their prisoners – I don’t know which of these is true if either of them."

But if you want to link the events at Abu Ghraib and the romance between Graner and England and so support the idea that woman and gays be keep from the combat and support staff of the military you need to connect these two in some way stronger than unsubstantiated conjecture. Otherwise that conjecture is completely basely (or even baseless).

Hmmm, well Brit, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think it's the sort of thing that one can prove with rock solid examples without some kind of study or something. I see England as possibly pivotal as the initial supporter of Graner, and so possibly the ice breaker that gave his actions acceptablility to those involved, and you don't. So be it. Oh, and don't tell anyone, but I'm really Hugo Chavez...

Don't flatter yourself redneck I only email intresting people. I did email some people on PME, but you're not included.

I think a very important aspect of life should be love. You can't expect a girl who was raped to love her baby. If she wants to keep the baby that should be her decision. It is HER body. If she doesn't want to keep it, that should be HER decision too. Of course the month in which an abortion takes place is very important. After 5 months it would be wrong, but you don't have to wait that long.

What bothers me though is the death penalty. Same christian logic should be applied to the death penalty. Forgiveness is a very important aspect of Christianity. Now I am in favor of the death penalty, so don't attack me on that, but you speak so beautiful about life, it really feels so good. I'm moved. Why not forgive at least some criminals than? That doesn't mean you're letting them go, it does mean you don't kill them right away. Nice christian attitude. Your whole warm speech is just fake, isn't it? Pro-Life? You're funny people

"Sarge is Kofi Annan"??????!!!!!! I would NEVER have anything to do with the UN....can I have something a little more appealing and less sleazy to run? No matter how much UY WANTS me to have said anything kind towards the Nazis....I HAVE NEVER DONE SO.....quote me with the context or STFU.

I love it when people try to find the hipocrisy in being pro-life, yet pro-capital punishment......DISREGARDING the fact that an unborn baby is innocent of any crime. I'm all for a society to be able to permenantly remove through execution those people that have proven that they can't live in a civil society without committing capital crimes. Of course, I also have no problem if that society feels that it does NOT want to do so and would rather lock 'em up, so long as they NEVER let 'em out......but it should be up to the People.

LOL

Sorry Sarge I couldn't resist. You're in deep, deep cover.

I read a book today written in 1968 about the Vietnam War that was still going on in that year. In fact it was basically still in the early years. It's almost scary how much similarities you can find if you compare both wars. For example, did you know Diem like Chalabi or Allawi lived in the US for a long time before the Americans made him their man in South Vietnam? Of course the people of Vietnam saw him as an American vassal. Same with Chalabi or Allawi.

Back than collateral damage was being paid for as well. A dead familymember was 40 dollars. At least your paying more now. With your new offensive in the north-west your budget for the war might be higher than you expected, but that doesn't matter because Bush will ask for more money and nobody will ask any questions. It's scary, really scary. The whole mentality is the same as during the Vietnam War. It will take a long time before you understand you lost this war. Years, but we'll keep talking with each other on this forum. We'll follow all developments.

Hey Brit, I just read today that Graner is now MARRIED to ANOTHER soldier implicated in the Abu Ghraib scandal. I can't say that locks my point, but it seems to buttress my argument a little more... Tim, I think the Viet Nam analogy is a weak one, but I'll not argue that now. When you mock us for paying people for damages when a civilian is inadvertantly killed, are you implying that we should suspend the practice because you find it crass??? Perhaps the soviets were more civil, since they never would've made those crass payments...

Well brit....I was only hiding out as a white man because of the Oil for Food probe......so I gotta go down to Mass General and get my negro-plasty and get back to blaming the U.S. for everything "bad" in the world.

Hi Doug,

Still doesn't do it for me. Unless he was involved with all of them. His "romantic" life wasn't central to the events as can be seen by the fact that most of the people involved weren't involved with him. What I will concede is that England and his now wife clearly left to run their emotional lives without serious help.

Hi Sarge,

Good luck with surgery and blaming the US for everything, I hope these work out for you.

WARNING This poster has been demonstrating his stupidity on a number of occasions today whilst at work (and possibly a few of his posts last night). Views expressed here maybe below his usual IQ level. As such this is the only post he is allowed to make today in case he embarrasses himself by saying something profoundly dumb.

Brit- c'mon, don't you think it's at least plausible that since Graner apparently had romantic influence on two others there, that now with them to agree with his actions, that others then might also find them more acceptable? Psychologists call it mob mentality. I think that three is a significant number in a military unit. Hitler wasn't romantically involved with every German, but he got enough to follow him on his crazy path... Romance can be a tool that can be misused, and has no positive use in a military unit, thus should be removed when possibile.