Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

Who should America strike first, Iraq, N. Korea, or niether?

  • Iraq

    Votes: 16 32.0%
  • North Korea

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Neither

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Who cares? They'll just end up bombing Canadians again anyway.

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Total voters
    50

Cam

Spaceman
You guys really shouldn't "debate" unless you have concrete evidence to back up your opinions.

Originally posted by Skyfire

...everyone who bitches about us, will also then turn and complain when we don't do anything as, "Your the superpower in the world, and if you want to act like it, you have to take responsibility for ensuring the protection/saftey of the rest of the world."

Everyone needs to get off their damn high horse about telling the United States what to do, excluding United States citizens. The rest of the world always get pissed by what we do, and what we don't do. To hell with them, as they aren't us-and a good portion of them wouldn't be around/have military and government stabilty if the United States had not acted in some point in history.
The world doesn't tell the United States what to do, the world just gets angry when you try and start wars. War's bad for everybody. We don't live in your country and we aren't affected by your news, therefore we can make objective decisions. The key word is objective here. Without proof, all your statements can be fallible.

You are arguing using history as your support, however if you go back in history long enough, your argument fails. For instance if I said: if it weren't for England, the United States would be nothing (literally). What would you say to that?

It has nothing to do with military, governments, or whatever. What Napoleon is saying (aside from the reactor thing) is that you Americans have the right, as one of the last superpowers on earth, to be responsible. Making wars, killing innocent lives, is not being responsible. Helping Kosovo separate from Yugoslavia and Milosevic's ethnic cleansing IS responsible. Being a hypocritical nation--stating that Iraq should not have weapons of mass destruction while the US has a stockpile of thousands--is not responsible. Doing whatever you please as a nation is NOT responsible.

I also have to say that the world is much to complex to sum up, and the conflict that is going on in the Middle East is a result of many factors. Lets use Skyfire's use of history to prove my point! If it weren't for ENGLAND, this conflict in the Middle East would likely not exist. England/UN created the Jewish nation state of Israel. If Israel had not been created, then Palestinians would not be fighting with the Jews. If the US had not supported any side in their (THEIR) conflict then we would not be hearing complaints about American foreign policy. American foreign policy is the cause of terrorist attacks against the United States on many occasions. Without the United States supplying weapons and putting Saddam INTO power in the first place to combat Iran, you would not have someone to fight about right now.
 

Happy

Spaceman
Originally posted by Cam

You are arguing using history as your support, however if you go back in history long enough, your argument fails. For instance if I said: if it weren't for England, the United States would be nothing (literally). What would you say to that?
other than,"thats correct, Alex" i'd have nothing to say.:rolleyes:

I also have to say that the world is much to complex to sum up, and the conflict that is going on in the Middle East is a result of many factors. Lets use Skyfire's use of history to prove my point! If it weren't for ENGLAND, this conflict in the Middle East would likely not exist. England/UN created the Jewish nation state of Israel. If Israel had not been created, then Palestinians would not be fighting with the Jews. If the US had not supported any side in their (THEIR) conflict then we would not be hearing complaints about American foreign policy. American foreign policy is the cause of terrorist attacks against the United States on many occasions. Without the United States supplying weapons and putting Saddam INTO power in the first place to combat Iran, you would not have someone to fight about right now.
to say that the root of all problems in the middle-east are the result of western influnce is insane. there have been more wars fought in that land, that time has forgotten most of them.

Personally, im tired of hearing what the world is saying the US can and cannot do. ie, read end of previous post.:(
 

Cam

Spaceman
Happy, isn't it kind of childish to label Napoleon a "socialist" when he's just being a responsible citizen?

There is nothing wrong with socialism. In theory it's a perfect society--if you watch Star Trek on TV, you'd know (it's "Federation" is communist)--but in reality, it's been given a bad rap because of corrupt governments taking power.

Americans (and the rest of the capitalist world) just don't like communism because it's the opposite of capitalism. It means that instead of being at one level, you can be filthy rich, and everybody else can be living in poverty. In communism, there is no poverty (but then again there is no rich either), which means there are no slums. In communism, everybody gets free medical, dental, and any other necessity. Everybody's equal in communism.

Perhaps capitalism just works with human nature. We are greedy. Maybe that's why socialism failed (partly--it's blend with capitalism is making China into the next big nation in the new millenium, and Canada has done well with it for the past half century).

But by no means is calling Napoleon a "socialist" going to help prove your point.

On another completely different note: I agree with you. I think the US should keep out of EVERYBODY'S business. It'll bring more trouble than it's worth! Go back to isolationism America! Back I say!!!
 

Cam

Spaceman
Originally posted by Happy
to say that the root of all problems in the middle-east are the result of western influnce is insane. there have been more wars fought in that land, that time has forgotten most of them.
I didn't say that the root of all problems in the middle-east are the result of western influence, I was merely stating some major affectors. :)

We shouldn't forget that the animosity between the Jews and the Muslims have lasted for centuries. That is of course, the root of the matter.
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by Happy
WOW, Napoleon, u've said everything right out of the socialists handbook 101, with the exception of the line "WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDERN!!!???"
You definately managed to advance your point with this statement. In my eyes it made you look like a mature, objective person willing to listen to other people's points.

"Look at me, I'm dirty pinko scum! This is because I don't agree with Happy! "

Now, does anyone see a problem with what I just said?

Also, I don't think you have any idea what socialist actually means.

u go on about what is right or what is wrong, but what about the other people's of the world?
i know u've enjoed all the rights and priviledges u r guaneteed in this country, but u over look the fact that these countries don't give a damn about rights, or individual freedoms.
when u have grand kids, and they ask you about the death camps of north korea, how could u look them in the eye and say "I fought against our own government from saving MILLIONS of innocent people. I let them die as i never saw them, so they never exisisted..." i could go on, but i think my point has been made.
As opposed to looking your grandchildren in the eye and telling them "I invaded a country that we failed to honour our obligations to and managed to personally kill a large number of people defending their homes from unwanted outside attackers?"

You're basically using the arguments that got the US into Vietnam. People don't always want 'saving' from their government.

but anyone can get the answer they want out of a poll, it's how the question is asked.
Which is why you should examine the questions that were asked before citing any polls.

WE WERE ATTACKED, AND IT WASN"T OUR FAULT, anyone who argues against that is unamerican, and can go straight to china and join ur chi.-com. little buddies. :) :p :rolleyes:
There's just so very much wrong with what you said here...
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
I'll have a good look at this later. I really don't have the time right now. But I will give you something to chew over in the meantime.

"You want facts? I'll give you a few good ones. Fact; the grunts on the front lines; even the ones with lots of well placed sources, never see the whole picture in a war. Fact, the fastest way to lose a war is to allow morale to be sapped by half assed
young officers with big ears, bigger mouths, and no common sense at all. And fact; I know a communications officer with too much time on his hands who is letting his love for gossip jeopardize morale."
 

Maniac II

Rear Admiral
IT SAYS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION right where it says that congress has to declare war, not the president. The fact that the us govenrment has refused to follow the standard practices of civilized nations and actually declared war rather than skipping over the constitution through something that i would say is illegal.

----quoted from Napoleon


OK, WHAT makes you think we will constitutuionaly declare war, huh? we havent done that since before ANY of us have been born!! What makes you think we have to do it now??? It falls under the line of a police action (Yah thats right---Vietnam, Korea, Persian gulf, ect. were all police action). Those were all initiated by presidents, not congress, THE PRESIDENT!

OH and what is all this BS about us HAVING to supply Korea?? WHY the hell do we HAVE to supply Korea? We dont even have our own poverty level low enough for satification, and we HAVE to worry about some other 2nd world country, that would have been just fine had it stayed capitalist??? Ya thats right we would've been MORE than happy to supply a fellow capitalist country!!! I mean we help them, and they're likely to bite the hand that feeds them!!! I mean look at China with that spy plane. We are one of their major trade partners, and they REFUSE to return it.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Cam
We shouldn't forget that the animosity between the Jews and the Muslims have lasted for centuries. That is of course, the root of the matter.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Historically, Jews and Muslims have always gotten along better than either Jews and Christians or Muslims and Christians. This "traditional hatred" between Jews and Muslims is something that has only come into existence during the last century, when they found themselves squabbling over the same tiny piece of land.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Maniac II
OK, WHAT makes you think we will constitutuionaly declare war, huh? we havent done that since before ANY of us have been born!! What makes you think we have to do it now??? It falls under the line of a police action (Yah thats right---Vietnam, Korea, Persian gulf, ect. were all police action). Those were all initiated by presidents, not congress, THE PRESIDENT!
Right... so, why exactly aren't you worried about that? I mean, this doesn't mean that it's all right for the US President to attack Iraq or North Korea without the Congress' permission... it just means that the flagrant violations of the constitution have been going on for far too long.

I mean look at China with that spy plane. We are one of their major trade partners, and they REFUSE to return it.
Oh yeah, that's right, because I'm sure the US would return a Chinese plane that had been sent to spy on the US... in an alternate universe.

HUH? ANSWER THAT WISE ONE!!!! GOD YOUR IGNORANCE DISGUSTS ME!!!!!
And the next time you post remarks like this, you will find your entire post mysteriously disappearing. Well, not mysteriously... no mystery about me deleting posts containing this sort of crap.
 

Maniac II

Rear Admiral
Right...sorry 'bout that. Hmm... maybe i didn't strike a gold mine in the debate world.... just another argument that is starting to get too serious. Maybe i wont make a thread like this again... or one that could get people in trouble for saying the wrong thing...:(
 

Skyfire

Spaceman
Originally posted by TC
Would you like to find some numbers to support yourself? According to the United Nations, the US is ranked 19th in Peacekeeping personel contributions in December (pdf)... and going back before September of 2001, here's August (pdf) of 2001, where the US is ranked 17th in contributions...

I'd tend to see things such as that as flawed, when Bush tells the UN that he would be more than happy to pull our people out of peacekeeping missions, and they nearly shit themselves. I doubt our influence/effort is so limited, else they would-in your case-have MANY people more willing to assist others. But I don't disagree with those facts-however, that was supposed to be a trumped up exaggerated number-maybe I'll clarify that next time.

Originally posted by Napoleon
world community agrees with our action you americentric jingoistic prick.
See, now that's just plain rude. People who hurl insults around in an effort to accent their point tend not to have any actual, reasonable, arguement. I hope there is an apology coming for such unreasonable attacks upon my person. (That's not the issue, there are many things you could attack there.)

Originally posted by Napoleon

And we SIGNED THESE TREATIES and our entire reason for wanting war with iraq is becuase they arent following UN regs, and now you say we dont have to but they do? more importantly we signed the geneva convention, meaning that if we attack them in an aggressive war we will be in violation of international law and will be war criminals. Even if we were to drop out of the convention, we would still be shunned by the entire world.
Perhaps you don't understand me, I disagree with the UN as a general whole, and believe it should be abolished-or at least have us removed. Thus making it where, TA DA!, we're not bound by their wanna-be governing regulations.

Originally posted by Napoleon

Not to mention that aggressive warfare is wrong.

Aggressive warfare is right. Sorry, decided just to counter that because I don't see this as being necessary...you made your feelings clear earlier.

Originally posted by Napoleon

YES YES YES. why the fuck shouldnt they hate us when we intervene without permission, and like us when we interven with a request. Acting as the world's superpower should be acting in a responsable way, which means only intervening in the internal affairs of other nations when our help is requested by them. To do otherwise is once again dishonorable and extremely irresponsable of us.
To do so at all is completely idiotic on our part, but that's another story entirely. And if they hate us, why would they ask us to interfer with their affairs (in the times that they do). Seems like other countries have bad priorities in their annoyance with the United States.

Now! Next up!

Originally posted by Cam

The world doesn't tell the United States what to do, the world just gets angry when you try and start wars. War's bad for everybody. We don't live in your country and we aren't affected by your news, therefore we can make objective decisions. The key word is objective here. Without proof, all your statements can be fallible.
Please...please don't tell me that your serious here. This entire statement has more flaws than I'd tend to slightly analyze. First off, yes, the UN does tell the United States what to do. As the UN is supposedly a governing body for the world, they do. (And I'd try to limit my point to that, sound easy?) Welcome to the world! Objective decisions? Yet you wish to tell me that MY statements can be fallible? I see no actual proof to all of your statements either, yet you seem to rely upon them as if they are facts you can look up in a book. (Even your thing about Jews you can't, that's pure and utter opinion folks!)

Originally posted by Cam
Making wars, killing innocent lives, is not being responsible.
Of course, our efforts to do things such as...oh, fighting the Axis powers in WWI and II, by that type of thinking, is irresponsible. (As your not laying out situations where it's ok! Helping others, yes, but not going to war for it!)

Originally posted by Cam

You are arguing using history as your support, however if you go back in history long enough, your argument fails. For instance if I said: if it weren't for England, the United States would be nothing (literally). What would you say to that?
What in the holy hell are you talking about! This has nothing to do with actions the United States is taking now. But, I'd probably say...yeah, go to a history class and I think you might pick that one up...:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Cam

American foreign policy is the cause of terrorist attacks against the United States on many occasions. Without the United States supplying weapons and putting Saddam INTO power in the first place to combat Iran, you would not have someone to fight about right now.
Again, I don't see the proof on this one, but I'll let it go for you. And since your saying it's ok for us to help people try to get away from any sort of "cleansing" action, isn't it just RESPONSIBLE enough of us to take care of a problem we made, tie up our loose end that may have been in error? If we made the problem, how is it not our responsibility again?
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Napoleon
Firstly that is flat out wrong, the reactors are breader reactors it makes nuclear fuel as a biproduct of producing energy, they do both energy and plutonium.
yeah, they just happen to start up a reactor that produces plutonium to meet their energy needs. and just because they need the energy, they make nukes. right

We agreed to be the welfare provider of north korea when in 1994 we signed a treaty saying we would be.
which we shouldn't have done. it's their country, let them take care of it

IT SAYS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION right where it says that congress has to declare war, not the president. The fact that the us govenrment has refused to follow the standard practices of civilized nations and actually declared war rather than skipping over the constitution through something that i would say is illegal.
well, the president has the power of being the commander in chief of the military. that power gives him the right to order the military into action WITH the support of congress. and if you call the US uncivilized for not declaring war everytime we need to use force, what do you think the world would say if we did. yeah, the US declaring war against grenada. i can just see that. a superpower declaring war against some country smaller than many of the STATES in the US. that should make you happy. but it ain't illegal. go back and reread the consitiution FULLY before you come here and say it is illegal

I actually was wrong, it was morelike 100,000. Look up any information on the gulf war. I heard it on cnn and had it confirmed by an old article i found in the NY times.
and still i ask CIVILIANS? if you had said soldiers, i could believe you, but CIVILIANS? you might want to go look it up again.

WW2 did not help the economy. we were naturally comming out of the depression, in fact it is suspected that the war slowed down the recovery. Recall that all the factories had to be retooled in 1940-42 in order to make war machines. That slowed down the recovery. Plus the debt the government incurred during the war has been raising all our taxes for the last 50 years.
might want to go back and learn some history. WW2 DID help the recovery from the great depression. yes, we were on the road to recovery, but WW2 accellerated that recovery. the retooling and subsequent war production provided JOBS. you do know that the debt from WW2 was paid off, don't you. the only reason the debt is as large as it is is because of the policies of certain presidents AFTER the debt was paid off.

First off we are by no means the worlds welfare provider, we give a smaller portion of our per capita income than ANY OTHER industrialized nation. More importantly it is a mater of human rights. How long will it be until all you nationalists realized that a human is a human no matter what flag he lives under the oppression of.
i DO realize humans are humans no matter what flag he's under. when will you realize that if you constantly support someone, he will never learn to live on his own

By god man, no. The US has no right to act as the bullys of the world, or as the popos. We are required to fight where the UN needs us though, as the reverse. It happens to sanction action where it is actually needed, instead of every where bush doesnt like the color of the skins of the people, which is what the US would like. Its a little something called honor and decency, concepts that you have made clear in your post that you have no clue about.
your post clearly shows that you need to come out from under that textbook you live in and wake up.
as for the second part, i will show how much decency i have and choose not to respond to your comments. but i will say this. you lucky we don't live in the 19th century and you don't live in the south, cause comments like that would have you facing a duel at 12 paces, cause we southerners take our honor very serously

Yes it could about the american revolution, something which was a bad idea. We at the very least quickend if not caused the fall of french monarchy, we caused england to retain its monarchy, and we have since been nothing but bad for the world.
you might want to shut up while your ahead, because all your doing is proving how stupid you are

What are you on, i dont mean the fact that we did win, and the reason why we didnt win and couldnt win is because we would have had to massachred the entire population of viewnam to do it, and sometimes national pride isnt worth all the lives that would die for because of it.
again you just prove your stupidity. we wouldn't have had to kill everyone in vietnam, and it wasn't about national pride. it was about following through with our treaty promises and that honor and decency thing that you say i don't know about. was is honorable and decent to leave the south vietnamise so they could be killed by the north? was it honorable and decent to leave after saying we would protect south vietnam?

The iraqi people unanimously elected Saddam, and are being ruled by an iraqi,
you don't actually believe that bullshit, do you? it's kinda hard to elect someone else when there is only one guy running and if you don't vote for him you get killed.

Japan was going to have surrendered anyway, but if we had been a moral nation we could have invaded while inflicting a minimum of civilian casulties, by only killing those who are acceptable to kill, ie the soldiers, while leaving the civilians unharmed. SUre more americans may have died, but by god we claim to be the land of the brave, it is by no means brave to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians as a primary target.
i'm shocked beyond words that you actually posted this. don't you know what you just said. you said it would be morally acceptable to kill millions of people just as long as we didn't kill a few hundred thousand (after the effects of radiation were factored in). you can't say all of us 'nationalists' don't give a shit about people in other countries after what you just said. don't you know anything about history. the pentagon was predicting a million, repeat million, US casualties. since WW2 there hasn't been a need to make any purple hearts (that the medal a soldier gets if he/she gets wounded by the enemy, no matter how insignificant) because of the number that were manufactured in preperation for the invasion of japan. and the million US casualties is nothing compared to the number of japanese that would have died. and the japanese were preparing their CIVILIANS to fight to the last man, woman, and child! the atomic bomb SAVED lives. Truman had no choice but to drop the bomb. if we had invaded and the american public had found out that he had available a weapon that would possible end the war with fewer casualties, TO BOTH SIDES, truman wouldn't have lived long enough to get impeached.


[QUTOE]Ok saddam has never once threatened the united state, not once. more importantly, we have WMDs, Pakistan does, india does,russia does, ISRAEL does. there are alot more important places to be concerned with there being WMDs then in iraq. We are going to iraq for oil and to get peopls minds of the economy and bush's inadequacy as a human being plain and simple, anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.[/QUOTE]

you know, all this bullshit you post makes me re-evaluate my decision to go into the military. i don't know if i want the knowledge that i would have to defend and perhaps die for people like you on my mind. but then again, if i don't enlist, that would mean that you won, and we can't have that.


No it means that they have told us what their prices are, they want to eat, they want to have heat.
if that little piece of fantisy make you feel better, you can go ahead and continue believing that

Yes we should feed them and provide proper drink, but they are human beings, not mice.
you missed my point. if we give them one thing, they will ask for something else. do you understand now?

if by gore supporter you mean a little thing called the Democratic party, you know the guys who won the populist vote in 2000? then no. Im a libretarian, but seeing as how the only people who would be silly enough to not call shrub and appointed idiot are the republican party members, i can say i dispise bush just as much as anyone.
is it possible for you to put aside your bias and have a logical debate for once or am i asking too much
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
YOU HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IRAQ HASNT COMPLIED WITH SANCTIONS. they are letting the inspectors do their thing, they gave a full and as complete as possible report as to everything that they were asked for. The only stuff we have is some vague comments by the administration saying that they have some evidence, but we are never told what the evidence is.
really. so iraq kicking out the inspectors in direct violation of the sanctions wasn't a sanction violation? iraq building WMDs in direct violation of the sanctions wasn't a sanction violation? and since when is the public supposed to know everything that goes on? you, sir, are an idiot
 

Maniac II

Rear Admiral
You know there is one thing that has not been discussed here. The CNN. Is it as good as they say. I mean come on, they are able to get information (well quite a few times, and this does not include special forces, or special opreations deployment) on were we are attacking, and as much as i love my country, the us has a real big weakness, just about anyone can get in. Ya ANYONE, that includes agents (lets just call them that, just because to say what is really on my mind cant be proven) for other countries. To get back to the point, the "Agents" can get cable like anyone else, get CNN, watch it, get information, and send it back to their homeland. Then you can go from there. NO i am not saying the CNN is a bad news sorce, infact i am saying just the oppisite, its good. Infact it's too good, and it will probably bite us in the ass later on. How this relates, even if we do go to war, we are going to have a hard time kicking major ass, because of CNN.



Oh, almost forgot. My opinoin on the UN. I'm sorry this is true, but the UN is no good anymore, infact it is a tool for control on the US. If we go to war and they dont like it "SHAME ON YOU, YOU WAR MONGERS!". and if we dont go to war and they want us to we hear: "THOSE POOR PEOPLE, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO SIT ON YOUR BUTTS AND DO NOTHING?!?!" so you see, no matter what they are going to critisize us no matter what we do. :(
 

Happy

Spaceman
wether or not it is right, it is obvious what is going on. i don't know who many of you are familiar with the middle-east, and the axis of evil. it makes complete sence to go after iraq first. once a new gov.'t is in place in iraq, and with a new gov.'t already in place in afganistan, it would leave iran rather boxed in, or squeezed in.
and the beauty of the plan is, we, the US, do not have to attack iran or iraq.
apparently the US, and Britian are not the only countries uneasy with saddom.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,408784,00.html

there is also a growing unpopularity of the standing gov.'t in iraq by its own citizenry, one it is pinched, it won't belong after that that the farse of a gov.'t will calapse.
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
both your posts are excellent and true. too bad there are some who insist on living in their own little fantisy world and refuse to wake up and see the truth.
 

Happy

Spaceman
Originally posted by Napoleon
Lets have at you.

We agreed to be the welfare provider of north korea when in 1994 we signed a treaty saying we would be.

in the constitution, it plainly says, the President is the head negotiator, the President can negotiate anything, but the US is not bound to ANY agreement until the US SENATE passes it with a 3/5 majority. as this did not occur, the US was never in that treaty, therefore, we never agreed to give them ANYTHING.

PS. rock on Aries...
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
pretty sure we did sign said treaty (by sign i mean senate confirmed it there buddy)

Iran being in the axis of evil is by far the most ignorant statement anyone who repeats it has or will ever make. My father was born there, and was kicked out when the shah lost power because of his connections to the government, but i know whats going on there, and i can say that there is no reason to attack iran. period.

OF COURSE the public should know whats going on, they want our support for something why the hell should we trust bush?

why wouldnt they? they want a weapon to defend themsevles from the imperialist aggression of the united states, and they want heat, best of both worlds, right there.

Yes we havent declared war in the past half century THAT IS MY ENTIRE POINT. Not declaring war is an end run around the constitution and from my end is illegal.

The UN: it is an organization that historically has been the tool of the united states, but more importnatly it is there to prevent any nation from being a big bully and unilaterally doing anything that is stupid. My fellow americans are upset because this time it is us who they are trying to stop from bullying the world around.

NO you check out your history about WW2, long term our fighting it did NOT help the economy, that is a myth of epic proportions. What did help the economy was that we had to bail out all the western european countries after the fact, the marshall plan was the single most brilliant attempt to help out the us economy, and it worked brilliantly.

Aries southern honor of the 19th century, thats the same honor that defended slavery right? thats the same honor that oppressed, enslaved, raped, and murdered an entire race for two hundred years, right? Thats the same honor that lynched and terrorised an entire race for a century after the end of the civil war, right?


Good god man, no one in the south wanted the south vietnamese government, it was corrupt and only existed because the US proped it up constantly, dont you remember back then that south vietnamese monks would cover themselves with gasoline and light themselves on fire in protest of us supporting their government and their government existing at all? No one wanted us there except the small elite group who were the patsys of us and the s. vietnamese government. The N. Vietnamese didnt kill s.vietnamese, the US did. WE bombed S. Vietnam more than N. Vietnam. We killed more s.vietnamese citizens than northers (because of the vietcong being all s. vietnamese)

My views on the american revolution in so far as its relation to france and england are not my own only, they are those of several rather well respected historian dudes, Look up the essay "L'etat c'est moi" by Phillipe Erlanger

Yes more soldiers would have died had we invaded (i still maintain we wouldnt have needed to) but the fact is that their would have been fewer civilian casulties, and even if there were more, sometimes it matters how people die and why. Targeting the civilians as the primary target is the lowest form of attempting to make war, I would even claim it was a form of genocide. I would argue that the intent is as important as the crime, something that the Nuremberg trials agree with me on, the intent behind killing the 6 million people was just as important as the killing of them, since many more died as soldiers in the war.

Im glad you dont want to become a baby killer and murderer (in relation to joining the military aries) but the better reason is so that you dont become a murderer. (yes all soldiers who see combat and kill anyone are murderers)

We are arguing ideas, thus our own ideas come into play, backed by either facts or logic. You said "your a gore supporter" i explained my political position in response to that, u asked, i told. so bite me.

Just to note, no i am by no means a socialist, or a communist. I am however a moral person and there is an extent to which the rich should be expected to offer assistance to the poor. We are morally obligated to provide them (if they cannot do it) with a bare minimum needed for life, beyond that its up to them.

Skyfire: the point he was making about the us placing saddam in power is that we are the ones responsable lots of these problems, our attempts at meddeling have caused huge amounts of pain and suffering, further attempts at meddeling will just do it again because we DONT care about the people in those nations, we only care about helping out ourselves. Cuba, Iran, Iraq these three nation's current situation is purely because of the US and our supporting illegal, illegitimate, and evil regimes.
 

Maniac II

Rear Admiral
Come on Napoleon, give it a rest, cant you write anything smaller than 2 pages? I mean your almost in this as much as wing nuts are into WC! I mean it seems we are arguing on one specific thing within this area! no one is moving the descusion along, i tried to and people ignored my post... I honostly dont think either side is going to give in, but you are going to go on debating aren't you? dang i give up, you guys are into this, i'm either geneous for makeing this thread, or i deserve to be dragged into the streets and shot. :D
 
Top