A lesson that needs to be re-learned

[fatman]

Name me 1 country and its Government that's the shining beacon of all that's pure, Fatman

Canada?  I was kidding sirs, kidding!  Seriously though, it bothers me to see my tax money going to support a government that makes these kinds of decisions.  That Iraq isn't a beacon of light isn't my point, my point is that we should be using our influence (even if it is waning) to take care of these issues.  Isn't it absurd to you that the Iraqi government is willing to release accused terrorists, and murderers, in their amnesty program but intend to keep gays under lock and key?

I'm not saying that we need to leave tomorrow.  But I will say that my support for this endeavor, which was lukewarm after the initial phase of this campaign, has dropped considerably since I learned of this news.

[fatman]

"the United States will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

So when are the freedom loving Iraqi's going to release the homosexuals that they're holding in their jails?  The proposed amnesty will release terrorists (or those accued thereof) but not homosexuals.  Is that the freedom that we're bearing the burden, meeting the hardship, supporting the Iraqi's, and opposing Al-Qaeda for?

And I'm not a Democrat.




Will these Homosexuals be released by the Iranians after their guys take over?

I think that I see what you're getting at.  I should find the Iraqi policy acceptable because an Iranian policy would be worse.

That is really absurd Plane.

That's the equivalent of saying that I should accept Democratic policy because Republican policy would be worse.  If we all just accepted it, then change would not happen.  I'm not willing to do that.

[BT]

But I will say that my support for this endeavor, which was lukewarm after the initial phase of this campaign, has dropped considerably since I learned of this news.

Has you support for US politicians waned after the way they went after Larry Craig?

And yes i am aware that many members of the GOP wanted his hide, but many dems sat back and did nothing.

[fatman]

But I will say that my support for this endeavor, which was lukewarm after the initial phase of this campaign, has dropped considerably since I learned of this news.

Has you support for US politicians waned after the way they went after Larry Craig?

And yes i am aware that many members of the GOP wanted his hide, but many dems sat back and did nothing.

The problem that I have with the Craig incident is that he pled guilty to make it go away.  Another man charged in the same sting was acquitted, but Craig was so worried about his career that he tried (in a rather foolish way) to make it go away.  There is also a personal integrity issue with Craig, in which he said that he would resign (whether that decision was right or wrong is another debate), then turned around and refused to.  Politically, it's insignificant, as Idaho would put another conservative Republican in, but it makes Craig look irresponsible and dishonest.  I've said before that I'm not in favor of outing closeted politicians, even if they're conservative Republicans who don't vote for gay rights measures.  Whether they choose to stay in the closet is their business, not mine or yours or their constituents.  I think that the big culprit in the Craig story was the press, who refused to let go of the issue.

As for my support for American politicians for the way they went after Craig, that would have to depend on the motive for going after him.  If they went after him because he exercised poor judgement for pleading guilty to something that he supposedly didn't do, then I could go along with that.  If they went after him for being gay (which he denies) then my already abysmally low support for Congress would bottom out, and that goes for both parties.  I tend to believe that it is the former that is the motivation.

As to the Democrats, I don't understand what you're getting at.  What are they supposed to do, support him for being gay, something he denies?  Or support his bad judgement?  I may be incorrect, but I don't recall them jumping on the bandwagon to oust him, nor do I see them calling for his impeachment.

[BT]

Craig was arrested for because he was allegedly trolling a restroom at an airport for gay sex.

A wide stance is not illegal.

Running your hand under a stall wall is not illegal.

Apparently in gay circles this is a known signal and the arresting officer arrested Craig because of that.

The state of Minnesota historically has been a dem stronghold. Odds are the laws Craig was charged with breaking came from a dem legislature.

The larger point is that the US has just as many anti-gay laws on the books as Iraq does.

Seems to me your ire is better served being focused locally, where you have more impact, than on changing cultural idiosyncrasies in far away Iraq.

[fatman]

Craig was arrested for because he was allegedly trolling a restroom at an airport for gay sex.

A wide stance is not illegal.

Running your hand under a stall wall is not illegal.

Apparently in gay circles this is a known signal and the arresting officer arrested Craig because of that.

The state of Minnesota historically has been a dem stronghold. Odds are the laws Craig was charged with breaking came from a dem legislature.

The larger point is that the US has just as many anti-gay laws on the books as Iraq does.

Seems to me your ire is better served being focused locally, where you have more impact, than on changing cultural idiosyncrasies in far away Iraq.

Ok, I see where your point is coming from now BT, I was sort of confused at to what you were trying to say in the initial post.  Sex in public places is illegal in this country, and it should be.  No one wants to take their two year old in to use the bathroom and see two guys (or even a straight couple) getting it on (at least most people).  Don't take that as siding with the sting, if that's the best thing that the Port police have to do then they should cut their staff and save some money.  It's still a far cry from locking someone up because they're gay.  If it were a co-ed facility and it was a woman trolling for a guy the same thing probably would have happened.

I'm not concerned with what political party did what, at least not in this case.  A Republican legislature would probably vote the same laws.  And your points about the wide stance and running your hand under the stall wall are valid, and Craig should have taken that to court.  I'll tell you honestly, as a gay man I wasn't aware of these signals, but I've never been into the "scene" a whole lot, and those are probably not the only signals that I'm oblivious to.

I do contribute locally, with both cash and time.  PFLAG, GSA, Pride events, I spend time and money on all of these issues.  I don't see how that should preclude me from bringing attention to the matter in Iraq though.  Wrong is wrong, no matter which way you cut it.  What does bother me is that we're pouring so much money and manpower into a nation that allows these things, and I'm not in favor of the status quo.  Obviously, Iraq is not as bad as some, Saudi Arabia or Iran for example, but we aren't helping to rebuild those countries.

[Plane]

"the United States will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

So when are the freedom loving Iraqi's going to release the homosexuals that they're holding in their jails?  The proposed amnesty will release terrorists (or those accued thereof) but not homosexuals.  Is that the freedom that we're bearing the burden, meeting the hardship, supporting the Iraqi's, and opposing Al-Qaeda for?

And I'm not a Democrat.




Will these Homosexuals be released by the Iranians after their guys take over?

I think that I see what you're getting at.  I should find the Iraqi policy acceptable because an Iranian policy would be worse.

That is really absurd Plane.

That's the equivalent of saying that I should accept Democratic policy because Republican policy would be worse.  If we all just accepted it, then change would not happen.  I'm not willing to do that.

I generally do vote for the best chioce offered , then do what I can to encourage better choices.
That might be absurd , but it is another point I was makeing.
I think you are demanding "perfection" before "good enough" is even acheived.
There isn't a way or a reason for us to make Iraq perfect before we remove our hands from her , at the first moment of "good enough" we need to let them go and fix their own destiny.

[fatman]

While I understand what you're saying Plane, I disagree.  It is with applied pressure that things get done.  Saying, "Well, that might be good enough" works for some things but not for others.  I don't necessarily see it working here in a country that we're supposed to be bringing "freedom" to.

[Plane]

While I understand what you're saying Plane, I disagree.  It is with applied pressure that things get done.  Saying, "Well, that might be good enough" works for some things but not for others.  I don't necessarily see it working here in a country that we're supposed to be bringing "freedom" to.

The freedom to be openly Homosexual is a recent development in the US , something that we approached gradually and we are not used to it yet ourselves.

If it were presented as a necessacery freedom to the founders in 1776 ,it would have been rejected by most of the leaders and most of the people.

We are not going to persuede Iraq to be both democratic and also carbon copies of ourselves , we need them to become democratic and then leave .

Pressing a point that we do not need is done at the cost of our own blood , I want to settle for the minimum need .