http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

what is this a misconstrue fest? And what the hell does saddam have to do with terrorism, if it's money, then we are just as responsible for indirect killing.

then maybe we shouldn't have thrown rocks at the little kids in teh first place

look, you seem to be getting angry, and you are making me out to be something that I'm not. I'll hang on here for five more minutes, but lets not escalate this. I have a freaking programming assignment due at 4 tomorrow, that's after classes.

If you are going to call me a terrorist or a terrorist supporter for denouncing a violation of self determination, then I don't want to argue anymore. I know where my loyalties lie, but I have enough self-respect to question them instead of gulping down what I'm told.

 

I'm not angry at all. I just choose not make excuses for terrorists.

I always appreciate good debate. Saddam had a lot to do with terrorism. I can elaborate for you, but I suspect you already know to the depth he was involved with terrorism.

It's one thing to blame your country for things that happen in war, then try to compare them to the mass killing of an evil dictator when no war was happening at all.

 

look i made the native american comparison ok, and tho ww2 was a noble struggle (not the civilian slaughter, but in principle), we have killed elsewhere and solely for our benefit and you know it.

sigh.

ok going to bed. (i mean home and then bed, hopefully)

At least you are more rational than sitetutor was, he's a good guy, but he really had that topic explode with rage, from me, ac, and him. You might call us all single-minded but damn was that a pointless exchange.

 

I'm always open to good debate. I have no reason to be upset at words, I can only try to offer an opinion from the persective of one who doesn't blame his country for the world's problem and excuse those that are really to blame.

BTW, I'm part naitive American. I don't hold any animosity to those times.

I'm sorry you are disappointed in democracy, I'm sorry you seem to prefer saddam still be in power. I disagree. I think people should be free to choose.

Reminds me of an old quote:

 

oh my god i knew you'd drag me back into this. please stop putting words into my mouth, because the end does not justify the means.

you say i'd want saddam in power? No, i'd prefer him not to be. That doesn't make sense you say? Well think of it like this, I'd like to have sex with an appealing woman, but not if it meant raping her. The end does not justify the means. It's all about principal.

And no, I personally, am not disappointed with democracy, flawed though it may be, but it is not my responsibility to decide for another people how they should be governed. If I want to spread my ideas, I'll send missionaries and envoys, not bombs.

can we please leave it at taht for tonight?

I haven't made any counterarguments; only defended my position. I really have to do this linked list crap.

 

I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I noted you seemed to have considerable disappoint over things of long past, but so little disappoint with one man responsible for killing millions. Maybe there's a rational reason after all?

Here's a better comparison. If you learned the woman you wanted to have sex with was killing millions of people because she was HIV infected and having unprotected sex with multiple partners every day, would you want to stop her, or just let her go on killing because it's none of your business? After all, she is killing people, innocent people, however slow and painful the death may be.

Is it your responsibility to be disappointed for them? Even though they value and appreciate their new found freedoms? It is good to spread your ideas via missionaries and envoys. That's far better than spreading it by the sword.

I understand, respond when you can. Seriously though, I don't get upset. I'm surprised my posts even indicate that to you. I've debated long enough to know that people that are in bed with their ideals rarely ever change them, no matter how much fact you put forth. And I admit, it's much easier to be on the "blame America" bandwagon. It's a popular bandwagon to be on, but it will be short lived. There's too much change and too much progress going on in the world. Too many blatantly liberal papers printing main headlines like "What if Bush was Right?"

Going back to the topic, I spent some time exploring the database of the site (in this topic) that is blaming America for everything. And I do mean everything. It appears that even if someone had a heart attack since we arrived, the US is to blame. Funny how so many deaths seem to be caused by terrorists in the database, and yet mysteriously there is no blame for them.

 

- Entirely because you are not angry at all.

There are very few people that 'just want to blow themselves and other up' its usually a case of dispair, revenge and anger - cause and effect.

Doesn't matter who started it, its been going on since the dawn of time.
Most of the people dont blame the country, they blame a few individuals at the top.

 

bleh......................

i don't think we are making any sense to each other.

I guess I'm not a nationalist and the way things are going, I never will be. I think Mencius had it right:

do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

(paraphrased)

that's a philosophy I can stick to.

 

And I would prefer to stop the woman with aids from killing the masses.

"Is there not some chosen curse, some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven, red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man who owes his greatness to his country's ruin!" -- Joseph Addison.

Goodnight David, will check in tomorrow. Hope you received my PM well.

 

THis thread is gonna be huge....10 pages possibly...

Anyway, I say keep the pandoras box closed. We dont need more complexities in life.

But Bush is tryingto do this war on terror, and he doesn't need all these people complaining about it. I agree with GTEch and I am glad you know whats going on cause alot of peopel dont know whats at stake here.

 

If only the world were this simple... I saw this couple on TV the other day and the girl was HIV-positive, but the guy wasn't. Crazy as it sounds, the guy was madly in love with her and was practicing just that - unprotected sex. Miraculously enough, at the time the program was made, he still was clean. According to your logic, somebody should try to save the innocent guy and just shoot the girl on sight. Well, guess what - he may just shoot the shooter.

J.D.

 

G-tech, your hero and roll model Bush Senior is the one who let him stay in power after the first "so-called American victory" in the early 90's.

That is what gave Saddam the opportunity to gas the Kurds.

His puppet son and Chenny are responsible for all time record gas prices (OIL $55.00 a barrel now) and remember, Bush said the war was OVER last MAY.

You Republicans are lost and your propaganda is old man, everyone knows that Bush leadership has failed and that he is a lame duck President.

 

saddam gassed his people on his own. He didn't need a permission slip from us. He didn't need a permission slip for mass graves, head chopping, throwing people off roofs, cutting off people's hands, tongues and other attrocities. It doesn't surprise me that you would try to find a way to blame America for his actions though

Neither Bush nor Cheney can control oil prices. I find it illuminating you think a president has that power though.

Is it too early to start making excuses for terrorists too?

 

I don't blame America, I blame Bush Senior and his failed administration that somehow got back in power through corrupt "elections".

You are the one making excuses for his failures.

Seems to me that situation sounds like our administration of the prison abu grave or whatever

See the link below if you are interested in our way of getting info out of folks by sending them to other countries to be abused.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002198512_secrets06.html

A few secrets that no one knows about exist in the above article G-tech.

 

The Kurds were not "his people".

 

Sure they were his people, they were in Iraq, he gassed them. Makes it no less the attrocity. But people still defend him.

Anthony, you skipped right over that controlling oil prices. Just kind of lob things out and hope someone will believe one of them, eh?

 

Who defends him? I've never heard anyone defend him.

 

I know you have a problem with sound logic G-tech, so lob this

http://www.alternet.org/story/20127/

Presidents can determine oil prices by filling the oil fields with war and that is exactly what the Bush Senior administration has done.

RECORD OIL PRICES, destruction of the world economy, even the Federal Reserve Board chairman has warned of it, in addition to record national debt and trade deficits run up under Bush.

Now he wants the Social Security money also.

He also wants your children, parents have come out against Bush sending their kids to fight for his oil just in the last week it is in the news.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=parents+military+recruitment&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&pstart=1&fr=sfp&b=11

 

It would help if what you are posting as evidence that presidents have control over oil prices actually talked about it. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Clinton could not control rising oil prices either, though he did release some reserves in an effort to try. It didn't work. Why would you take the time to post an article that neglects to back up your point?

I say again, neither Bush nor Cheney can control oil prices. No president has that authority. Oil prices are controled by OPEC.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11731

I suppose there are still misguided people, uneducated in the finer points of life, that still hang on to the oil for war premise.

 

Did you get that link from your Republican propaganda network G-tech?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Heritage+foundation+republican+propaganda&btnG=Google+Search

It is certain that most of your information comes from the propaganda filled Heritage foundation or other Republican controlled groups.