we are awful. The war in america is over, and yet people, especially bush think that we still belong in the middle east. Their just greedy, capitalist trying to force our morals, ethics, and laws against an innocent country. look what they did to hawaii. I may be american but i will never forget my heritage.

You hate the capitalists that gave your heritage a say in the most advanced country in the world?

What did the capitalists do in 1959 other than giving your heritage the same rights that the other 49 states enjoy?

That is civil war...people dying for a cause; land, freedom from one another, so on, and so forth...

Saddam was killing people OFF THE STREET, not people who were fighting in a war of any type. He tortured, and then brutally murdered a million+ innocent people. Now, if a dictator would kill 1/22 of the United States' population, he'd kill 13 million innocent people.

Saddam is a known terrorist, Sudan is controlled by a militia group, in civil war. Saddam had been warned by every person imaginable...you don't think one of your democrat friends DIDN'T notice the threat? What did Mr. Clinton, in all his majesty do about Saddam, and what was his reasoning?



He has HAD them before, what WASN'T stopping him from having them again? His threats about them are just as good as the actual things. I think you are saying Saddam is an innocent man, you hate republicans, and you think Bush is a bag full of crap.

Did Saddam let UN inspectors come in and inspect...no. Did he in 2003? No.

So what did we do? The EXACT same thing your good friend did in the early ninty's. We bombed them, and overthrew a murdering dictator, oh, but your good and all mighty Clinton didn't do that one, he just, you know, bombed them, and then you know, got impeached. You are only thinking about WMD's...Killing 1 million people is a good enough WMD.

This is why people in the USA get life sentences for murders. Think murders as being WMDs. If they have murdered before, after twenty years you don't just say "What the heck? He won't murder again, let him be free, and threaten everyone and kill more people. No, they get life sentences. War is needed. It is still needed.

Oh, and may I mention that Saddam had known connections to Al-Quida, which, in case you were too much in distress about Gore not winning the election, they're the ones who killed 2,000+ innocent people on our own soil.

I agree with ^^

and besides, Bush would have been critisized if he hadn't gone into Iraq too. the war started partially because we believed that Sadam had WMD's... just because we didn't find them doesn't mean they didn't/don't exist.

^ wrong. the war wasn't started because iraq had WMDs. it was because iraq allegedly had a nuclear weapons program. this was based on false intellegence, which may or may not have been fabricated for the purpose of attacking iraq. the bush administration has acknowledged that saddam was not trying to rebuilt a nuclear program.



i'm trying to say the US should have waited for UN action for iraq. UN action for iraq wouldn't have come because there are more pressing actions, like the genocides actively going on that need stopping.

there's always a way to make bush look bad. simply because there are too many holes in the message he feeds amercians.

Clinton did the same thing...yet Saddam was still in charge after he bombed for the same reason Bush did. Saddam was threatening the U.S. with nuclear, biological or chemical attacks, even though he did not have the capabillity. Besides, we don't know EVERY single document, or any form of communication that the White House had with anyone (including threats, etc.). You cannot base the reason for the war on televised media, or your own reasons for hating Bush, republicans, etc. It's called bias, and you are seeping with it.

So what you're trying to convince me of is that the Sudan's genocides are justified because it's a civil war? Tens of thousands of women and children should be allowed to die because its being done by a militia group with a cause?

The Al-Qaeda has a cause, and we made an effort to halt them. Why is the Janjaweed militia put in a different category?

Killing is killing.

EDIT//



You do know that the UN has been scolded for months due to its lack of interference in Darfur, no?

Where is the 75% of the UN's entire budget that comes from the United States going? Or didn't you know that the United States pays most of the UN's bills?

How can they bitch at us for anything?

The United States pays roughly 22% of the UN budget. And while that may seem unfair, member nations contribution according to the size of their GNP; while the United States does contribute a fair chunk of the change, it is nowhere near 75%. Furthermore, the US currently owes the UN more than $240 million in unpaid dues.

Not when it comes to PKOs. Fortunately, I had the privilege of being in the National Forensics League last year and had the opportunity to argue about peacekeeping missions, and when it comes to troops and forces, I had memorized that over 75% of the fortitude comes from the stripes and stars.

Well, "entire budget" and "peace keeping operation budget" are two entirely different things.

At any rate, the US does not contribute 75% of the UN's PKO budget: "The United States is the world’s biggest contrib­utor to U.N. peacekeeping operations, contribut­ing 27 percent of the total worldwide U.N. peacekeeping budget. The U.S. is expected to con­tribute over $1 billion toward U.N. peacekeeping activities across the world in FY 2006." [1]

Again, I wish to note that the US's contribution is admirable, and I don't wish to dispute that; I am just interested in having debates with actual facts and support, not with wild figures pulled out of thin air.

I never said it was justified, Sudan never directly made a threat to us or anyone else, just each other. The US cannot do everything, while other countries just sit there and don't help (except in Iraq and Afghanistan)...We aren't the only peacemakers in this world, we just try to help.

Yes America is the modern day babylonia

read this about babylonia and tell me if this don't sound like america

---------->Babylonia<----------

Except for the fact, you know, that Babylonia doesn't exist anymore, yeah, they are totally like us...

I've never pulled anything out of thin air, I simply don't have the evidence cards from last year anymore.

I would remember something that significant, and I used it every time an affirmative team called for more USA money toward the UN.

Well, the figures in that article are quoted straight from the State Department, which I doubt would underestimate the amounts.

I guess there's nothing I can do since I don't have those evidence cards any more.

I thought I remembered that the percentages were quoted by the former United States ambassador to the UN, but I suppose I'm out of luck.

Yeah, and history will repeat itself

already did. Rome.

but rome lasted 1000 years, so we've still got 700 years left.


2+2=5
i love big brother

people hate america because america interferes with so many people's lives outside america.


stop and think, just for a moment, that america is not the best way to live. democracy is not the best way to live. what america is forcing on the world is not the best way to live.

im not saying i think democracy is bad, but it shouldn't be america's choice who uses it.


america is hypocritical.


bush goes to iraq etc saying he wants to make people's lives better, yet refuses to cut down on the amount of pollution (highest in world per person by a wide margin) that is probably killing more people than smoking, war, gun crime or mrsa.

When you say "America" you make it sounds like very single American is full of himself/herself, when that is not the case. The terrorists that flew the planes into WTC obviously held this ignorant stereotyope.

If we didn't interefere with ANYTHING outside the US, we'd all be dead right now. Period.

Oh, and since democracy sucks, you don't get a say in pollution and other nation-wide problems, you're too busy getting bossed around by the communist government and evil dictator that rules the "perfect" idea of your country.

Non sequitur. I'm not saying you are wrong, but in the debate forum, it would be infinitely more helpful if people would qualify statements such as this when they are made. Could you provide reasoning for your statement?

How so? The first time America interfered in a foreign war was when we supported an invasion of China in the 1860s. That's almost a hundred years after independence. And that just involved a couple hundred soldiers. The first non-defensive overseas war we were involved in wasn't until the Spanish-American War in 1898. And we survived just fine before then. US interventionist policy didn't really begin until McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt; which was already 60% of the way through our nation's history.

To refute the common example of World War II: Hitler didn't even have enough military strength to invade Britain across the English channel. A cross-Atlantic invasion would have required so much logistics that (not to mention that air support would have been impossible, since the Germans did not have the werewithal to maintain a carrier fleet and planes operating from France or Britain could not hit the United States), in the time it would take him to plan it, the Soviets would have crushed him entirely.

If we didn't have the support of Britain, it would have been effectively impossible for us to launch D-Day, starting in America. Similarly, a mass European invasion of America (which, at the time, had a population of 125 million, most males in which knew how to competently operate a firearm) would have been impossible.

Other countries that don't intervene have done quite well--Switzerland has not been invaded in five hundred years, and Finland was the only country fighting on the Nazi side (after they were invaded by the USSR) in World War II not to have been conquered by the Allies.

Or, if you look at the Civil War, Kentucky stayed completely neutral--even though it was right in the middle of Union and Confederate territory. There were a few campaigns fought in Kentucky, sure, but Kentucky lost fewer men and property than did any of its neighboring states--Tennessee, Virginia, or Ohio/Indiana/Illinois even.

No country has been destroyed by its non-interventionist policy (now, non-interventionist is not the same as isolationist--a non-interventionist would still support things like free trade, immigration, and cultural exchange, just not military intervention; there have been countries destroyed by isolationism, most namely China). However, there are many countries that have been destroyed by their interventionist policy.

really now. let's think about this. terrorists only want to blow americans up because we went onto muslim land.

2+2=5
i love big brother

i said quite clearly that i was not saying that democracy was bad.