US Presidential Election Poll

[earth_as_one]

A big clue that the US led invasion/occupation was an unprovoked attack is then when pressed, even the UN Secretary General at the time had to admit it violated international law:

16 September 2004 – Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes that the Iraq war in 2003 demonstrated the need for the international community to address the issue of preventive action in the context of Charter principles and showed the importance of joint efforts on matters of use of force, a United Nations spokesman said today.


Responding to media questions about the Secretary-General's comments in a BBC interview, spokesman Fred Eckhard told a press briefing in New York that in his remarks the Secretary-General had reiterated his well-known position that the military action against Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter.

In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."

The Secretary-General said the war in Iraq and its aftermath had brought home painful lessons about the importance of resolving use-of-force issues jointly through the UN. "I think that in the end everybody is concluding that it is best to work together with allies and through the UN to deal with some of those issues.

"And I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time," the Secretary-General told the interviewer, noting that such action needed UN approval and a much broader support of the international community.

Mr. Eckhard stressed that this had been the Secretary-General's longstanding view. The spokesman added that one of the purposes of a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which the Secretary-General had established, was to look at the issue of preventive war and to see how it could be employed in conformity with the Charter, which does not allow pre-emptive attacks...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=iraq&Cr1

Despite US pro-war propaganda which created perceptions to the contrary, Annan expressed the viewpoint of a majority of UN members:

27 March 2003

Security Council
4726th Meeting (Resumed)(AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL CONCLUDES TWO-DAY DEBATE ON MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ;

NEED FOR IMMEDIATE HUMANITARIAN AID, PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS STRESSED


Broad Majority Say War Violates International Law, UN Charter;

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/99...da9fbb49df30126985256cf7005b162c!OpenDocument

Even Iraq war architect Richard Perle conceded the Iraq war was illegal:

Thursday November 20 2003

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

Since the Iraq war was illegal, that makes it a war crime. People who commit war crimes are war criminals. People who support war criminals are accomplices.

I see the Iraq war as a test. People who were easily manipulated into supporting this war crime or who support it knowing its a war crime aren't fit to hold public office.

McCain has consistently supported the Bush regime's illegal activities against the Iraqi people. The US led by McCain would continue to be a violent rogue nation and a threat to world peace.

Obama passsed this test back in 2002:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

That's why Obama is qualified to be President of the United States. This election shouldn't be close.

 

[Praxius]

A big clue that the US led invasion/occupation was an unprovoked attack is then when pressed, even the UN Secretary General at the time had to admit it violated international law:



Despite US pro-war propaganda which created perceptions to the contrary, Annan expressed the viewpoint of a majority of UN members:




Even Iraq war architect Richard Perle conceded the Iraq war was illegal:



Since the Iraq war was illegal, that makes it a war crime. People who commit war crimes are war criminals. People who support war criminals are accomplices.

I see the Iraq war as a test. People who were easily manipulated into supporting this war crime or who support it knowing its a war crime aren't fit to hold public office.

McCain has consistently supported the Bush regime's illegal activities against the Iraqi people. The US led by McCain would continue to be a violent rogue nation and a threat to world peace.

Obama passsed this test back in 2002:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

That's why Obama is qualified to be President of the United States. This election shouldn't be close.

Well put.... the above, on top of Obama's group isn't planning on imposing their morals and beliefs onto the general public, he would have gotten my vote. I'm not saying I have 100% faith in the guy, but in a lesser of two evils scenario such as this, he wins hands down.

That and didn't Obama present the challenge to McCain to stop with the petty personal attacks on one's character, experience and devotion to the country? And what did they end up doing during their big acceptance speeches? Attack his character, experience and devotion to the country.

I say if the Republicans want to play a dirty campaign, then the Democratcs should rub the Republican's noses right back into their own pile of sh*t that's been building up over the last 8 years or so, and make sure there is no doubt that McCain and Palin are going to be just more of the same.

 

[talloola]

After Nov. 4, we will know IF, the american people are 'paying attention', for the
first time, in a long time.

 

[Colpy]

After Nov. 4, IF, the american people are 'paying attention', for the
first time, in a long time.

And if they are really paying attention, John McCain will be sworn in as President on Jan. 20, 2009.

 

[talloola]

And if they are really paying attention, John McCain will be sworn in as President on Jan. 20, 2009.

In your dreams;-)

 

[earth_as_one]

I agree with Colpy. But unlike C, who hopes the war criminals will remain in control of the US, I believe he's right because most people are easily manipulated by fear and hate.

The American people could have elected environmentalist Al Gore in 2000 and by now the US would be helping the world deal with global warming, pollution and mass extinction. They choose G.W. Bush instead and as a result the planet continues to edge toward global catastrophe and war.

In 2004 Americans had a choice between tweedle-dee I can't make up my mind or give a straight answer Kerry or Tweedle-dumb war criminal Bush. They re-elected a war criminal and proved to the world that homosexual marriage is a bigger issue than committing war crimes and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

At least now in 2008, Americans again have a clear choice. On the one hand they can elect McCain who will continue the atrocities in Iraq and probably commit some new ones. On the other hand they can elect Obama who proposes cautiously extracting the US from the Iraq war and respecting international law. The choice is between continued war and economic recession or starting a new era of peace and prosperity.

This should not be a close election.

 

[talloola]

I agree with Colpy. But unlike C, who hopes the war criminals will remain in control of the US, I believe he's right because most people are easily manipulated by fear and hate.

The American people could have elected environmentalist Al Gore in 2000 and by now the US would be helping the world deal with global warming, pollution and mass extinction. They choose G.W. Bush instead and as a result the planet continues to edge toward global catastrophe and war.

But, had Gore been elected, (which he should have been, if not for supreme court), there would never have been an Iraq war. The biggest mess up in generations, and
it would NOT have happened with Gore, isn't that important?
Global warming is an issue, but would not have killed millions of Iraqis and over
4000 americans.

 

[Praxius]

And if they are really paying attention, John McCain will be sworn in as President on Jan. 20, 2009.

You might be right, so long as Bush's election machines keep working as they worked in the past for him.

 

[no color]

I imagine they would....... what else is there to do in Utah other then to have sex all the time?

That, and there's a difference between same sex marriages and polygamy..... one being the clear fact that same sex marriages are still between two people, not a barn full of hill billies passing out candy pop rings.

But I'd also like to point out that Marriage has existed long before Christianity was a brain fart.... Marriage has been a part of human life for thousands of years before any paticular religion adopted it. Christianity has no right to dictate to the rest of the world how marriages should be, so in my personal opinion, your "Traditional Definition" means squat.

No one has yet explained to me why it's ok to marginalize marriage as a second class institution for the sake of gay marriage, but not polygamy. Here's what I mean ... why is it ok to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to include one man and one man or one woman and one woman, but not one man and two women, or one man and three women ...etc). If you accept one but not the other you are being hypocritical, unless you can come up with an explanation.

 

[Kreskin]

No one has yet explained to me why it's ok to marginalize marriage as a second class institution for the sake of gay marriage, but not polygamy. Here's what I mean ... why is it ok to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to include one man and one man or one woman and one woman, but not one man and two women, or one man and three women ...etc). If you accept one but not the other you are being hypocritical, unless you can come up with an explanation.

For one, a two person marriage of any sex is an equal union. A one man and multiple woman union is not. The multiple partners are by default subordinate to the man. Polygamy denegrates one side of the relationship.

 

[no color]

For one, a two person marriage of any sex is an equal union. A one man and multiple woman union is not. The multiple partners are by default subordinate to the man. Polygamy denegrates one side of the relationship.

The multiple partners may be subordinate in the views of many (me included), however for many folks in Utah and some in B.C., it is a part of their religion. What I'm saying is if we have to marginalize the institution of marriage by removing the definition of a union between a man and a woman, then we may as well also redefine marriage to include multiple partners. it could also be two men and two women, this way it's wouldn't offset the balance as you noted above. Why would this not be ok vs gay marriage?

 

[Kreskin]

The multiple partners may be subordinate in the views of many (me included), however for many folks in Utah and some in B.C., it is a part of their religion. What I'm saying is if we have to marginalize the institution of marriage by removing the definition of a union between a man and a woman, then we may as well also redefine marriage to include multiple partners. it could also be two men and two women, this way it's wouldn't offset the balance as you noted above. Why would this not be ok vs gay marriage?

No matter how much attention either side gets in a two person marriage they both get exactly the same amount. What happens to a two and two marriage if one person separates? Does that make the marriage of the other three void?

 

[earth_as_one]

No one has yet explained to me why it's ok to marginalize marriage as a second class institution for the sake of gay marriage, but not polygamy. Here's what I mean ... why is it ok to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to include one man and one man or one woman and one woman, but not one man and two women, or one man and three women ...etc). If you accept one but not the other you are being hypocritical, unless you can come up with an explanation.

No one has ever been charged in Canada with polygamy since the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms became law. Likely polygamists would win their day in court if the participants were consenting adults who entered this relationship by free will.

 

[earth_as_one]

For one, a two person marriage of any sex is an equal union. A one man and multiple woman union is not. The multiple partners are by default subordinate to the man. Polygamy denegrates one side of the relationship.

In your opinion. You make a lot of assumptions. These relationships need not be subordinate. I have seen interviews of women in polygamous relationships who chose this lifestyle voluntarily where everyone in the relationship is equal and people compromise fairly.

Polygamy and polyandry could have economic and social advantages. One adult could specialize in rearing all the children and housekeeping. The household can have multiple breadwinners.

Inevitably Canada will have to recognize the legitimacy of these types of unions.

 

[Praxius]

No one has yet explained to me why it's ok to marginalize marriage as a second class institution for the sake of gay marriage, but not polygamy. Here's what I mean ... why is it ok to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to include one man and one man or one woman and one woman, but not one man and two women, or one man and three women ...etc). If you accept one but not the other you are being hypocritical, unless you can come up with an explanation.

The only explination I have is the following:

Marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

......The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.

......No specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage among the Greeks and Romans; only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.

......The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.

^ Same sex marriages and marriages themselves have been in existence long before Christianity and their definition of what a marriage ever existed. Once they came to power, they started to impose their morals and rules on how and what people could do in their personal lives.......

.... and yet at the same time:

....... From the early Christian era, marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Prior to 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.

If it was a private matter, then why were they dictating the rules on who and what gender you could marry?

One of many christian contradictions.

......It was only after the Council of Trent in 1545, as part of the Counter-Reformation, that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."

So Christianity is responsible for the limitations and what most understand marriages to be today. They took it as their own and threw out every other faith's and personal beliefs on what marriage should be.

But that doesn't make them absolute, let alone right to do this.

In regards to Polygamy:

Polygamous marriage, in which a person is married to more than one spouse at one time, is accepted by many societies, though it is far less common than monogamy. Africa has the highest rate of polygamy in the world. In Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple. Polygamy is normally not permitted in most western countries (see bigamy), though some recognise bona fides polygamous marriages entered into in countries that routinely perform such marriages, such as in a Muslim country.

Cultures that allow polygamy still sometimes place restrictions on it. For instance, in Islam a man is allowed to marry up to 4 women at the same time, but only in cases where (1) his first wife is infertile, (2) the local population is unbalanced with women strongly outnumbering men, or (3) he claims a strong love and sexual attraction for the potential wife which he says makes him fear of adultery. In each of these situations, all current wives are freed to leave the marriage if they so desire.

Polygyny is the typical form of multiple-marriage polygamy, while polyandry is rare. Anthropologists distinguish between multiple-marriage polygamy and group marriage, in which multiple spouses all become married to one another. Group marriage is also rare. In the United States, the historic Oneida Colony provides a prominent 19th-century example of a group marriage, though it was not recognised by any civil or separate religious authority.

To me, it is still a marriage regardless of other's morals. I can not say I promote it, but so long as everybody it involves agrees with the process of marrying multiple people, then who am I to argue?

But Marriage isn't exclusive to just the Christian definition, therefore nobody should be restricted to that one form of marriage.

 

[Praxius]

The multiple partners may be subordinate in the views of many (me included), however for many folks in Utah and some in B.C., it is a part of their religion. What I'm saying is if we have to marginalize the institution of marriage by removing the definition of a union between a man and a woman, then we may as well also redefine marriage to include multiple partners. it could also be two men and two women, this way it's wouldn't offset the balance as you noted above. Why would this not be ok vs gay marriage?

Technically, nobody is marginalizing anything. The original (not Traditional) explination of marriage was determined between the two (or more) people involved. So long as all parties agreed to being bonded and married to the other(s) then it was a ligit marriage..... no state of church was required to reconize it.

In other words it was no different then someone telling you they just started dating someone..... nobody chose for them, nobody gave a set of rules..... you liked a person, you begin to date them.... which is how marriage should be as I see it... if you want to be married to one another, then it is done.

So my answer, is that both are ok..... perhaps not to me personally, but one type is allowed, then all should be.

Marriage is not exclusive to the Christian definition.

 

[earth_as_one]

Anyhow, neither candiate is promoting polyandry or polygamy, so its not an election issue.

Foreign policy is one area where McCain is percieved to be stronger than Obama. But Obama picked Biden who has a lot of foreign policy experience.

His stand on other political issues here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Foreign_policy

Iraq

In 1998, Biden expressed support for the use of force against Iraq, and urged a sustained effort to "dethrone" Saddam Hussein over the long haul.[22] As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002 he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat".[23] After the Bush Administration rejected his effort to pass a resolution authorizing military action in Iraq only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts,[24] Biden argued that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons;[25] he subsequently voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Biden has since said that he believes it was a mistake to support the Iraq war because it has been mismanaged by the Bush Administration.

Regarding his belief that Iraq maintained stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, Biden stated in 2007 that inspectors had seen and cataloged the existence of the materials required to make such weapons prior to their expulsion from Iraq and pondered why Hussein didn't tell the international community that he had disposed of them.[23] Scott Ritter, the chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, stated in July 2002 that most chemical and biological agents produced by Iraq would have been neutralized or degraded in storage, encouraging the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee to convene hearings to reassess the threat.[26] When the committee scheduled hearings in the beginning of August 2002, Ritter stated that "Sen. Joe Biden is running a sham hearing. It is clear that Biden and most of the Congressional leadership have pre-ordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts, and are using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq."[27]

Biden is a leading advocate for partitioning Iraq.[28] He supports a "five-step plan" towards removing troops from Iraq. In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq. Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for federalizing Iraq with separate regions for Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.[29] The key points include:

Giving Iraq's major groups a measure of autonomy in their own regions. A central government would be left in charge of interests such as defending the borders and distributing oil revenues.
Guaranteeing Sunnis — who have no oil rights — a proportionate share of oil revenue and reintegrating those who have not fought against Coalition forces.
Increase, not end, reconstruction assistance but insist that Arab Gulf states fund it and tie it to the creation of a jobs program and to the protection of minority rights.
Initiate a diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of the major powers and neighboring countries for a political settlement in Iraq and create an Oversight Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.
Begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces in 2007 and withdraw most of them by 2008, leaving a small follow-on force for security and policing actions.
The plan, named The Biden-Brownback Resolution, passed the Senate 75-23 in a nonbinding vote on September 25, 2007, including 26 Republican votes. Iraq’s political leadership united in denouncing the resolution, while the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad issued a statement distancing itself.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Foreign_policy

 

[Kreskin]

In your opinion. You make a lot of assumptions. These relationships need not be subordinate. I have seen interviews of women in polygamous relationships who chose this lifestyle voluntarily where everyone in the relationship is equal and people compromise fairly.

Polygamy and polyandry could have economic and social advantages. One adult could specialize in rearing all the children and housekeeping. The household can have multiple breadwinners.

Inevitably Canada will have to recognize the legitimacy of these types of unions.

It need not be but it is. If the guy separates from all of them does that mean the women stay married to each other? If he wants to separate from one does that woman have to separate from the others? What if she wants to stay with the women but only some of them want it that way? That doesn't sound like a marriage with equal consideration amongst parties. He holds the power and cards in the relationship. The women aren't equal.

 

[gopher]

"She can't be held responsible for the actions of her daughter. "


Perhaps if these right wing Republicans hadn't been such self righteous religious hypocrites, nobody would take them to task for their idiocies.

When they criticize Democrats, I don't see anyone saying that they should be silenced.

Here are more Palin family values:

Now imagine if these were Democrats - what would the right wingers be saying??

 

[earth_as_one]

It need not be but it is. If the guy separates from all of them does that mean the women stay married to each other? If he wants to separate from one does that woman have to separate from the others? What if she wants to stay with the women but only some of them want it that way? That doesn't sound like a marriage with equal consideration amongst parties. He holds the power and cards in the relationship. The women aren't equal.

In countries where polygamy is legal, they are considered multiple marriages. The women are married to the man individually and they divorce individually. The women aren't married to each other, but are considered related by marriage, like sisters-in-law.

Why not start another string on the morality of polygamy/polyandry?