Cast Your Vote And Opinion On The Moral Issues Of The Day
Gay Marriage?  Decency Standards? Is Torture OK? Reenact The Sedition Act? Negotiate With Terrorists?
Bush/Clinton Comparison? Forced Mental Screening?    
Spanish Agreement With Terrorists    

 
Negotiate With Terrorists?     Separate Search Page
or search above		 Criteria For Moral Decision?
    You Can Help Write To Karl Loren Tables Of Contents
 

Spanish Withdrawal vs. US Stand Fast:  Results From Casting Your Vote For The Moral Issue

 You have arrived at this "Results Page"

The Question For These Results Is Here

No matter how you might "define" the word "obligation" it is clear that one Prime Minister, on behalf of his nation, pledged support for the war on terrorism in Iraq. Then, the terrorists, clearly changed the minds of Spanish voters, to repudiate their pledge, and to promise to NOT fulfill that original obligation. 

They have added that they might keep their troops in Iraq if the military effort would come under United Nations command -- an option the US has rejected any time it comes up.

In contrast the President of the US has announced, repeatedly, that the US will stand the course -- and keeps its commitments to the people of the US, Iraq and the world.

This is a moral decision.  How did these people vote on this issue?

Top

Name:
email:
Vote: I Agree With Spain
Question: Page 5
Remote User:
Date: Monday, August 02, 2004
Time: 07:29:34 AM

Comments

My Comments Are:

Dear No Name,

Sorry to hear you side with the appeasers.

Karl

Return To Top

Name:
email:
Vote: I Agree With US
Question: Page 5
Remote User:
Date: Monday, August 02, 2004
Time: 06:33:36 AM

Comments

My Comments Are:

Dear No Name,

Sorry to see no name.

Karl

 

Return To Top

Name: Kathy O.
email:
Vote: I would rather comment than vote.
Question: Page 5
Remote User:
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Time: 08:01:51 PM

Comments

I think the new prime minister fulfilled his promise to the voters.

Spain is after all a sovereign nation. However, I think it was the wrong thing to do as it encouraged the terrorists.

But he did have every right to do it.

Kathy

Dear Kathy,

Thanks for your vote.

You point out that "morals" are "above" the law.  Yes, he had a legal right to do what he did -- even perhaps a "legal duty?"

But it was an immoral act -0- the moral thing to do would have been to refuse to take power, and ask for a new vote -- because he disagreed with the moral position of "the people."

"The People" can certainly be wrong, can they not -- as is often true in the US -- when you regard the popular regard for TV, Coke and even drugs?

 

Karl

Return To Top

 

 

See The Questions That Prompted These Results

 

 

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed by independent associates are not necessarily the views of The Way to Happiness Foundation International. Independent associates are responsible for their own content, including the truth and legality of the statements made, and represent that they have the legal right and authority to provide the content or graphics provided. The Way to Happiness Foundation International does not independently investigate the content an associate places on his or her webpage(s) or any other promotional materials, and it expressly disclaims liability for same.

This web site is Copyright © 2004 by Karl Loren.  Grateful acknowledgement is made to L. Ron Hubbard Library for permission to reproduce selections from the copyrighted works of L. Ron Hubbard. Grateful acknowledgement is made to The Way to Happiness Foundation International for permission to reproduce selections from the copyrighted works of The Way to Happiness Foundation International. THE WAY TO HAPPINESS® and the ‘Road and Sun’ design are trademarks owned by L. Ron Hubbard Library in the USA and in other countries (trademark registrations issued and other registrations pending) and are used with permission.