[_redbird_]

Originally Posted by StarlaJane

You're joking, right?
I see a lot of people suffering in the world as well... do you support people slaughter as well?

OMG. Whatever.

People slaughter is only condoned in wars, haven't you heard? Get real!

[EarthBound?]

Originally Posted by HeatherDawn

Too bad they banned horse slaughter...that ban has led to a lot of suffering for horses.

Is there anyway they could round them up and sell them off? I know that some states are doing just that and using the money for well run horse control and management programs.
I understand that destroying them sometimes its the only way to keep them from starving to death. But we must remember, we're the ones encroaching on thier lands, not the other way around.
Just a thought .

[StarlaJane]

Originally Posted by _redbird_

OMG. Whatever.

People slaughter is only condoned in wars, haven't you heard? Get real!

It is? That's news to me; I have never heard of anyone condoning civilian casualties or the Holocaust, which is the closest comparison there is to people slaughter occurring in a war.
When someone chooses to fight in a war, it is not slaughter. They have made the choice to fight. They are not rounded up and killed as a solution to a problem; that's called "genocide" and is considered people slaughter. And as far as I know, no one in their right mind condones genocide.
Perhaps you think that we should round up all of the people in the world who are starving and just put them out of their misery?
And I totally agree with the above post. It's time that human beings got over themselves and realized that the Earth is populated by species other than humans, and that their existence is as valid as our own. There need to be better solutions to these problems, and I don't think that killing animals--especially as our own population grows by leaps and bounds--is the solution.

[EarthBound?]

Originally Posted by StarlaJane

It is? That's news to me; I have never heard of anyone condoning civilian casualties or the Holocaust, which is the closest comparison there is to people slaughter occurring in a war.
When someone chooses to fight in a war, it is not slaughter. They have made the choice to fight. They are not rounded up and killed as a solution to a problem; that's called "genocide" and is considered people slaughter. And as far as I know, no one in their right mind condones genocide.
Perhaps you think that we should round up all of the people in the world who are starving and just put them out of their misery?

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines don't choose to go to war, we are willing to stand up and do whats needed though. Douglas McAuther once stated in a speach to a West Point Senior class, "No one prays for peace as much as the a soldier does", vary true statement. But many times and this war we are in now is a good example of how our government uses its troops as two legged bullet stopper. So they can get control or help other take control over the worlds oil supplies.
So I feel the RedBird statement of people slaughter means the troops not just the civillians. And what other contries do to thier own is none of my business, like what Saddam Hussain was doing to his people.