tortured trix wrote:
> Hey -- this is the SAME argument right-wingers and conservatives use
> to justify censoring anti-war critics of the president in America:

You blooming idiot. Nobody has been censored in America. Responding to
the critics and their hysteria is NOT censorship, it's free speech.

> that just because somebody else is denied freedom in the past or
> somewhere else, then Michael Moore should not use HIS legal and well-earned
> right to take his one and only opportunity to speak out, etc.

That fat slob chose to politicize an awards show. He's had, and still
has, forums open to rant and rave as he's wont to do. Suggesting that
his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's
about good taste. As far as whether or not he earned an Oscar for his
deceitful mockumentary, I'll leave it to the Academy. I didn't see it,
and I probably won't.

> I do not want to falsely label all pro-war people as right-wingers
> and conservatives, since there are good reasons to go to war
> (to free people and animals).

Our self-preservation was also a very good reason for war. We also
happened to liberate the people of Iraq from a brutal thug dictator.
According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain
in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy.

> But many of the so-called
> pro-war protestors have no concept of giving taxpayers a CHOICE
> about which wars they wish to support or criticize.

You've no concept of our laws if you think that. We don't hold elections
just to allow ninnies to pontificate their opposition to war. You were,
and remain, free to oppose any facet of our government you want. Your
opportunity to support or oppose those facets occurs every two years for
the House of Representatives, four years for President, and six years
for Senate.

> These are the right-winger extremists.

Non sequitur. Leftist administrations have entangled us in more wars, to
which even leftists objected, than "right-wingers." That doesn't make
them extremists, it only tells us they operate on standards that rise
above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that
you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
action in Iraq. The President still enjoys the support of the majority
of Americans despite all the negative press and vilification from prats
like you.

> I DO actually like your attempts to make a distinction between
> a "soldier" and a "human rights activist". <snipped below>

The two aren't necessarily the same. You're not very bright, are you.

> However, even abstract purposes like you mentioned:
> fighting for one COUNTRY to have dominance over the resources of another

Some of us would argue that is NOT an abstract purpose. It's quite
concrete. Ask Saddam and his dead boys.

> -- STILL can and must be brought down to the reductionistic level
> of what a sentient being can observe: a human of ONE country is
> being given more right or access to property and resources than another.
> So a soldier is still fighting for some human rights.

Property and resources are human rights, but the taking of them by force
may be a violation of said rights. How is that fighting for rights?
Consider Saddam's rise to power and his use of the military to control
resources and subjugate the population. The result was a loss of rights,
even though soldiers were being used for Saddam's evil purposes.
Contrast that to selfless allied actions which deposed Saddam and are
now restoring human rights.

It's like a knife: a deadly tool in the wrong hands, but able to give
life in the hands of a surgeon. You really lack a clear grasp of the issue.

> To keep this relevant to this newsgroup: the same is true if we
> replace the word "human" with "animal".

Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have. It is a
peculiar concept which is of recent origin. Its popularity may be
increasing, albeit marginally, but only because of the urbanization of
our species.

>>How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order
>>to have will, an animal must exist first.
>
> It is called BREEDING. Look into it.

No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the
breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist
fertilization? While you're at it, please explain what an animal's will
is and how you know animals have wills.