You say:
I respond with my opinion. Then you say:
Talk about crappy point. How is it that you're entitled to express an opinion, and I'm not? You just claimed that you knew the world would be better if the US didn't get involved. I pointed out examples of how the world was made a better place by US involvement and you shout like a baby. I discussed the Quran and you retort with a link to bible quotes and admit that you haven't read the Quran. Then you make a blanket statment that all religions are the same. Do you really want me to do ten pages spelling out the major differences between the most popular religions? I write religion papers all the time. My exgirlfriend has me write the papers for her religion class. I'll make you look like a fool if you really want me to. I thought a few paragraphs would suffice, and I left it at that.
When the US came into Baghad, much of the place was in ruins and poverty. We're spending tens of billions rebuilding. And if we bombed the place into ruins, could you please show me some pictures of that? I've got tons of CNN footage of smart bombs taking out one building leaving the surrounding buildings untouched. Once again, you throw around opinions and scream like a baby when someone responds with opinions. Let's do a quick review. You said:
That's a ridiculous opinion. Go back and read some history books. Russia had econmic concerns, and got their butts kicked. 26 million Russians died. No way in hell would they march all the way to France. Nor would the world stand for it.
I considered the possiblity of this when you posted it. After reviewing all major military conflicts that the US was in during the 20th century, the US didn't start a single one of these. You flat out lied.
Yep, that's US propganda right there. You ignore the fact that Hitler marched into Africa, that there was a Western front to begin with, and that there was a Pacific theatre. To say that the war solely existed on any one front is ridiculous. The US was involved in three of the four fronts however. And the eastern push came after a lengthy western campaign. Hitler's initial targets were Poland and France. You've demonstated that you know very little about WWII and world history. Germany was able to make a huge push into Russia because of their economy. The war helped them greatly, and while Britain had nothing left to fight with, Germany was cranking out tanks left and right. They were 50 miles outside of Paris, and the West had crumbled. So Hitler looked East and marched his new tanks. The US repelled Germany for several reasons. One, we outproduced Germany on tanks and weapons. When we mobilized, it was scary. Germany also was stupid to invade Russia in the winter. Both of these contributed to Germany's failure.
The UN said for 12 years the weapons were there. We found some, and training labs for more. And Saddam used them on his own troops. Sweden was dead on in denying they exist. You accuse me of nationalism, but I have to wonder if your nationalism and anti-US sentiments are clouding your ability to see a logical arguement. Once again, you made a claim and were wrong. Yet you accuse me of lies.
Hans is an idiot. Iraq refused to allow inspections for the better part of twelve years, and Hans called that cooperation. Hans says one thing, and the UN security council unanimously said another for twelve years. Who do we believe? Considering that Hans has been proved wrong, it's not a hard call. You make brilliant arguements.
You blamed the US repeatedly for this blockade for the murdering a million people. The US didn't place this blockade. The UN did in response to Iraq's invasion of another country. You forget that. You also are ignorant of the fact that Saddam placed localized blockades in his cities to keep food and water out. Yet you blame the US for starvation. That's outright lies on your part. You're batting 1.000 so far.
Wait one minute. You question the validity of me getting facts from CNN and BBC while you're watching Fox News? Did you miss when the UK blocked Fox News from broadcasting in their country because of their lack of responsible journalism? Anytime a reported uses terms like "hero" they are editorializing. Furthermore, your argument seems based upon this notion that anyone with a higher budget is the villian, and that lesser equipped troops are thereby victims. The logic doesn't hold. Furthermore, you use the term murder. The planes crashing into the two towers was murder. Soldiers shooting soldiers is war.
Your links point to sites that claim the US invaded Iraq with no concern for human rights, terrorism, or democracy. They claim the US has economic motives. Considering that the war is hurting us economically, that sure makes sense. Considering we're spending a 80 billion dollar package on rebuilding Iraq, that makes perfect sense.
When Clinton bombed Sudan, evidence was brought forth to the UN many years ago linking Saddam to Al Quaeda, and WMD. The UN acknowledged the link to Al Queda, WMD, and terrorism. The UN also made note of Saddams refusal to feed his people and passed the Oil for Food program.
You take a leadership who praises terrorism, invades it's neighbors, starves it's citizens, has rape and torture rooms in it's "police" stations, uses human shields,
uses WMD on it's own people, etc as the victim. It's such a victim that the UN threatened action for twelve years.
Consider that argument for two seconds.
Your links and sources make an argument that Clinton killed a million innocent kids in Iraq. Well, the US wasn't behind the embargo as I've established. The UN put it in place. In case you forgot, the US didn't run Iraq between 1991 and 2004. The sources all make claims of mass conspiracy.
You want facts? Bush has spent billions on developing alternate energy sources. He gives tax breaks on hybrid cars and has said since day one that he wants to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. I get my electricity in my house from fuel cells. My local power company runs off them. They also have a nuclear plant. Does Sweden still use fossil fuels? And you call me a liar talking about oil being pumped in Iraq. I never said Iraq wasn't pumping oil. I claimed that we set up a welfare system to sell oil and give the money to the Iraqi people. You didn't read my post. People are screaming that this conspiracy is about stealing oil, except the UN is involved in the new oil-for-food program. No oil is being stolen, nor do we want it. Why would Bush invest billions in fuel-cell technology only to create a global conspiracy to steal oil? Are you also aware that we have tons of oil in our own country? We choose not to drive most of it due to ecological concerns, but if we need it, we got it.
Okay, recap done. Let's get to your current post.
Well, anytime I've asked a question or made a point, you largely ignore them. You've provided lies and unfactual information.
Do I need a link to talk about WWII? I thought outside of Neo-Nazi's the world agrees that WWII happened.
Diplomacy failed in WWI, WII, Korea, Afhganistan, etc. We pursued diplomacy for twelve-thirteen years in Iraq. Diplomacy did a fine job there.
The UN flat out ignored issues in Zaire, Liberia, South Africa, East Timoor, Tibet, Taiwan, China, etc. etc. etc.
The UN has become a mockery. They pass resolutions, and do nothing to enforce them. You keep mentioning diplomacy or non-involvement. You don't back these claims up, because you can't. I have no qualms providing research material. If you weren't acting like a child, and calling names perhaps I'd do the research. Frankly, I've had little time for anything, and little sleep this past week. If I'm going to do hours of research for a debate, it better be worth my time.
You haven't been.
