would invading Iraq have been such a bad idea

[johncmcleod]

That speech was stupid, I know, but don't hold all Americans accountable for what a couple people said. I'm not going to go to Russia, find a dumb person who believe Russia should take over the world, put their speech on the forum and then say Russians are evil.

First off, the fact we go out of our way to help other countries by giving them food, medicine, money, etc. and trying to stop war and Iraq doesn't outweighs almost EVERYTHING.

Why entirely blame America for the problems? First off, if the Russians would've supplied the VC with all the weapons, the war would've ended very soon with not much bloodshed. Also, the VC were playing it dirty and hid among civilians where they know we wouldn't attack them. But sometimes we did. It showed the incompetency of our military, but we learned from our mistakes. And something as bad as Vietnam won't happen again, social movements will stop something like that. They did it to Veitnam. Of course you bring up all the examples of problems we have had. I'M SINCERELY SORRY WE'RE NOT PERFECT. But you left out all of the work we have done throughout history for peace. Also, most of your examples weren't that recent. Most of them 20 or 30 years ago. With communications the way they are today in the modern world, social movements are more effective. The spread much quicker. The gov can't get away with much because of these movements. Saddam can get away with what he wants, he's a dictator. He's more dangerous.

About the Afghanistan thing. The gov said that because they were scared of communism, and they supported anything against that.

And the mistakes we have made we thought would be FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. Yes, some were bad, but the stuff Saddam has done is for conquest and greed. When was our last war for conquest? Mexican American War? Riiigghht, 150 years ago. The government wouldn't get away with something like that nowadays. And it wasn't for pure conquest, it was border dispute. We got all the way down to taking Mexico City, yet we gave them that territory back, we just got what we thought was ours. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait wasn't a border dispute it was PURE conquest. He wanted oil.

We try to learn from our mistakes and we try to do the right thing. Saddam is evil and weren't not.

[GeneralTacticus]

That speech was stupid, I know, but don't hold all Americans accountable for what a couple people said. I'm not going to go to Russia, find a dumb person who believe Russia should take over the world, put their speech on the forum and then say Russians are evil.

Read the site, then tell me the US government isn't evil.

First off, the fact we go out of our way to help other countries by giving them food, medicine, money, etc. and trying to stop war and Iraq doesn't outweighs almost EVERYTHING.

Oh really? So the fact that you occasionally hand out food and stuff outweighs three million people murdered in Vietnam, the use of bio-weapons against civilians in Korea & Vietnam, the use of nukes against innocent civilians in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and your support for death squads all over Latin America? If Nazi Germany had gone round handing out food to those Untermenschen they didn't slaughter, it sill wouldn't have absolved them of the Holocaust.

Why entirely blame America for the problems?

Because it was your fault, that's why.

First off, if the Russians would've supplied the VC with all the weapons, the war would've ended very soon with not much bloodshed.

That's irrelevant. You had no right to be there at all. The North Vietnamese government was the legitimate government of Vietnam, as admitted by the US government itself ('80% of the population would have voted for Ho rather than Bao Dai'), and the US government had no business establishing a puppet state in the South. You can't complain that the enmy caused the bloodshed; you started it, and you made it necessary. End of discussion.

Also, the VC were playing it dirty and hid among civilians where they know we wouldn't attack them.

Ever heard of 'free fire zones'? They gave US soldiers license to shoot everything in sight, and they availed themselves of that license quite frequently. Besides, that has little relevance considering that you should never have been fighting in Vietnam in the first place.

But sometimes we did.

You did it all the time, everywhere. That was what Operation Arc Light was all about.

It showed the incompetency of our military, but we learned from our mistakes.

Oh, there were no mistakes made in Vietnam, and the miltiary was indeed very good at competing it's objectives: crippling Vietnam enough that it would not serve as an example of the effectiveness of communism in the Third World. They pulled it off perfectly.

And something as bad as Vietnam won't happen again, social movements will stop something like that. They did it to Veitnam.

They haven't stopped Iraq yet, and the body count there is rapidly appraoching that of Vietnam. Moreover, they stopped Vietnam, but not until US objectives were largely acheived and millions of people were dead.

Of course you bring up all the examples of problems we have had. I'M SINCERELY SORRY WE'RE NOT PERFECT.

You're a very long way short of 'not perfect'. You've killed more people than Nazi Germany, and there's no sign that you have any intention of stopping soon.

Also, most of your examples weren't that recent. Most of them 20 or 30 years ago.

Fort Bennings is still operating. The sanctions and bombers are killing people in Iraq as we speak. In the Phillipines, one child dies every hour from diseases that would be treatable if the coountry's enormous foreign debt wasn't siphoning off that money they need to spend on health care. East Timor was onyl liberated three years ago. The list goes on.

With communications the way they are today in the modern world, social movements are more effective. The spread much quicker. The gov can't get away with much because of these movements.

They wouldn't, were it not for the fact that the US media doesn't mention the atrocities that the US govt has committed and still is, and most Americans don't care in any case.

Saddam can get away with what he wants, he's a dictator. He's more dangerous.

Saddam can get away with very little, actually, because he has very little influence beyond the IRaqi borders, and even within them he is restricted.

About the Afghanistan thing. The gov said that because they were scared of communism, and they supported anything against that.

You give them far too little credit. They knew damn well that the 'communist' government in Afghanistan (which, btw, wasn't really communist, just reformist and Soviet-backed) wouldn't threaten anyone or anything - they wanted the Soviets bogged down in Afghanistan for as long as possible, and they also wanted Afghanistan to serve as a monitoring station on the Soviet border to replace Iran.

And the mistakes we have made we thought would be FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

The good of the people running the country, maybe.

Yes, some were bad, but the stuff Saddam has done is for conquest and greed. When was our last war for conquest? Mexican American War?

Afghanistan, and soon to be Iraq.

The government wouldn't get away with something like that nowadays.

Oh, but they have. They just hide it under labels like 'the war on terror'. IfThe US government was really serious about stopping terrorism, they'd be well served to look within their own borders. You should try arresting Kissigner, Bush Sr. and Clinton for starters, along with Reagan, North and the rest of the guys who involed with the Contras. And that would be just for starters.

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait wasn't a border dispute it was PURE conquest.

Actually, the original cause of his dispute with Kuwait WAS a border dispute. IRaq had never ecognised it's border with Kuwait as valid, or, for that matter accepted Kuwait as valid. It was set up and maintaine dby the British as just another application of their 'divide and rule' strategy.

He wanted oil.

And do you know why he invaded? Because the US indicated that he could do so without retribution. They wanted to get rid of Iraq's flow of oil onto the world market to increase the price of oil and generate more profits for themselves and their firends in Kuwait.

We try to learn from our mistakes and we try to do the right thing. Saddam is evil and weren't not.

Saddam is a bastard, that much is true, but then again, so are a lot of other people. And for sheer evil, he can't hold a candle to the US government, which has been busy murdering people for it's own benefit for centuries.

[johncmcleod]

Again, at the time of Vietnam the gov was scared of communism. They would do anything to keep it out of countries. A big mistake. That's why the public protested and eventually the war stopped.

Occasionally hand out food? We spend around a trillion a year helping out other countries. And what about the peacekeeping? We go to other countries and stop wars. Your example of conquest was Afghanistan. The Taliban didn't need to fight it! We asked them to hand over the murderers of thousands, and if they did there wouldn't be an invasion. By refusing to do that was committing suicide. And how could you possibly say it was a war of conquest?! We're not taking over Afghanistan, we're setting up a new government there! If we took Afghanistan and declared it our territory, that's conquest. But we won't. The public won't have of it. The three million that died in Vietnam was your example of the US being worse than Nazi Germany. We didn't murder three million people! Almost all of them were VC carrying guns. Yes, unfortunately several thousand civilians died. It was a terrible thing made by terrible decisions from the members of our military. But our government wasn't telling the military to go around and kill innocent civilians. And the death of those civilians was enough to set the nation on fire. Social movements have now been proven. Right now, our government won't get away with much. The media won't cover up that much. Unfortunately some members of the government have done some bad things and labeled them the war on terror, but the media loves to show the bad things of the government, and believe me, the public knows what the government might try to do. I hear interviews on TV everyday about people saying how the government is doing bad things and labeling them as the war on terror. As I said before the US government can't get away with very much, the people have a lot of say in what happens, whereas in Iraq they have no say.

The Nagasaki argument is bs. If we were killing innocent civilians just for the sake of revenge or whatever you claim our motive would be, than why would we go for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We would go for Tokyo if that was our purpose. Do you have any idea who many millions more people would die if we didn't drop the bomb and we did an amphibious invasion of Japan? If you were in our position, what would you do?

The US government is on constant watch of the rest of the world, also. Everytime they make a mistake, the rest of the world is all over them

Do you suggest a different type of government? What's wrong with our constitution?

And, at least we don't have a ton of weapons aligned at other cities of countries who haven't done anything bad (cough cough North Korea).

I think I'm eventually going to lose the debate, you guys are smarter, but I might win if I get a little help (cue for other people to argue for my side).

[GeneralTacticus]

Again, at the time of Vietnam the gov was scared of communism. They would do anything to keep it out of countries. A big mistake. That's why the public protested and eventually the war stopped.

I said it before and I'll say it again: you give them too little credit. They knew that communism wasn't a real threat to them, only to their plans to dominate the Third World. It therefore had to hamstrung, or destroyed if possible, in Vietnam to prevent it from serving as a good example to others. Classified documents from that period all attest to this.

Occasionally hand out food? We spend around a trillion a year helping out other countries.

Source? And I'd bet that a lot of that money going to 'help' other countries is actually miltiary aid going to America's partners in crime, to murder either their own or populations.

We go to other countries and stop wars.

Care to give a few examples? And don't give me things like Bosnia or Kosovo; those wars were manufctured by the US int he first place to give an excuse for intervention.

Your example of conquest was Afghanistan. The Taliban didn't need to fight it! We asked them to hand over the murderers of thousands, and if they did there wouldn't be an invasion

They refused to hand OBL over without evidence, and damn right too. No-one ahs ever bothered to present any evidence whatsoever linking Al Quaeda to September 11, yet that they committed it is accepted as fact. Rather reminds you of when the Maine blew up and the blame was immediately placed on Spain, giving an excuse for the US conquest of Cuba & the Phillipines, or the 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident', which was purely a fabrication.

By refusing to do that was committing suicide.

Well, yes. Refusing to comply with death threats is usually pretty suicidal. Doesn't make it their fault, though.

(N.B. I utterly despise bin Laden, the Taliban, et al, and they definitely shouldn't have been running Afghanistan, but that doesn't change the fact that the US war against them has been one of conquest, and nor does it make OBL responsible for the WTC)

[quote]And how could you possibly say it was a war of conquest?! We're not taking over Afghanistan, we're setting up a new government there! /quote]

*YAWN* A government which is completely dependant on US support (Karzai even goes around with US guards), led by a former consultant to an oil company which is now planning to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. If you think a war for this purpose isn't one of conquest, then do you also consider the Japanese invasion of Manchuria to have not been for conquest?

But we won't. The public won't have of it.

Of course not. There's no way they could support their genocidal, terrorist government if it actually revealed the fangs behind the smile.

The three million that died in Vietnam was your example of the US being worse than Nazi Germany. We didn't murder three million people! Almost all of them were VC carrying guns.

So, there were three million VC in Vietnam, all carrying guns, including women, children, and the elderly? There were whole villages filled with nothing but VC? Even if this were true, which it isn't, that would rather sya something about the popularity of the VC, now wouldn't it? The US had no business being there in the first place.

Yes, unfortunately several thousand civilians died. It was a terrible thing made by terrible decisions from the members of our military.

Rather more than that. Do you consider the North Vietnamese civilians who died in the US bombing toi have all been VC carrying guns?

But our government wasn't telling the military to go around and kill innocent civilians.

*cough*freefirezones*cough*

And the death of those civilians was enough to set the nation on fire.

Yes, when My Lai became public knowledge, people got angry. But what they didn't know was that My Lai wasn't an aberration, it was routine.

Social movements have now been proven. Right now, our government won't get away with much.

They have and are getting away with far too much. Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosov, Afghanistan, etc.

The media won't cover up that much.

They have and do. None of the mainstream US media reported that, for example, the 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo was largely being carried out by the KLA, who were US alleis, and not by the Serbs at all. Nor do they report the ongoing and illegal US bombing in Iraq, which has gone on to such an extent that in the 'no-fly zones' in the north and south US officials have claimed that they're running out of targets to bomb.

Unfortunately some members of the government have done some bad things and labeled them the war on terror, but the media loves to show the bad things of the government,

Then explain why the media has never reported the above bombing in Iraq, the millions of innocent Iraqis who have died because of US sanctions, the US establishment of the Contras in Nicaragua to go after 'soft targets' with the intention of destroying the Nicraraguan economy, the activites of Nazi-esque death squads in El Salvador, or the thousands of Somalis who were killed by US forces during the intervention there.

and believe me, the public knows what the government might try to do.

No, they don't. If they had the slightest idea what the US government has done and is doing in their name, there would be no US government any more.

I hear interviews on TV everyday about people saying how the government is doing bad things and labeling them as the war on terror.

Yes, and? This is significant how? What exactyl are these 'bad things'? Police searching people's homes because they suspect they might have terrorist sympathies? That would be pretty bad, but compared to the other stuff the US government is doing, it pales into total insignificance.

As I said before the US government can't get away with very much, the people have a lot of say in what happens, whereas in Iraq they have no say.

The people have very little say in what the US does, actually; most of the time they don't know what's going on. And the US government and media work very hard to keep it that way, because they would be doomed if it became publically known what they were doing.

Just to hea doff any further argument about the media, I believe this quote, from John Swinton, who worked for the NYT and was called 'The Dean of his Profession':

“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

“There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

“If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

“The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread.

“You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press.

“We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.

“We are intellectual prostitutes.”

The Nagasaki argument is bs. If we were killing innocent civilians just for the sake of revenge or whatever you claim our motive would be, than why would we go for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We would go for Tokyo if that was our purpose

Well, for one, you wanted to see what the effects of it wer,e which would be rather difficult to discern if you dropped it on a city which was a charred ruin; and for another, dropping it on Tokyo would have destroyed the Japanese government, making it a lot harder to get a Japanese surrender, because there would be no-one with that authority save local army commanders, who were very much against surrendering.

Do you have any idea who many millions more people would die if we didn't drop the bomb and we did an amphibious invasion of Japan? If you were in our position, what would you do?

Keep on tughtening the net around Japan and starving it of raw materials. Eventually they would have collapsed, without the need for an invasion at all. Alternatively, give them a demonstration of the bomb in an area of Japan where few, if any, people would be hurt by the blast. Not perfect, buit a hell of a lot better than dropping it over a city.

The US government is on constant watch of the rest of the world, also. Everytime they make a mistake, the rest of the world is all over them

Actually, the rest of the world very rarely complains when the US does wrong; they know it's very unhealthy, though if you're clever enough, you can get away with it occasionally. No nation has ever protested US activities in Central America, for example; and even when other nations DO complain about US actions, people liek yous hrug them off because you still think you're doing right.

Do you suggest a different type of government? What's wrong with our constitution?

Nothing, though it needs some updating of present day realities (e.g. more constraints on the use of military force without a DoW, which was impossible when the Constitution was written but happens frequntly now), and it also needs to get rid of the electoral college. The main problem is that it isn't enforced any more; if it was, then things like the PATRIOT Act would never have gotten through. Most of America's political leadership would probably be in jail by now, as well, for war crimes and deliberately and knowingly lying to the American people.

And, at least we don't have a ton of weapons aligned at other cities of countries who haven't done anything bad (cough cough North Korea).

You sure seem to have a lot of weapons aimed at countries who haven't done anything nearly as bad as you (Iraq being the main example), and you've supplied a lot of guns to countries who ahve done A LOT of very bad stuff (Indonesia ring any bells? How about the Khmer Rouge after their expulsion into Thailand?).

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh, and another thing about your argument that the US government was scared of the commies; stupidity doesn't excuse murder.

[Ramo]

The short answer is that if we conquer Iraq, the Kurds would get screwed (again), one way or another...

[GeneralTacticus]

They're already being slaughtered, byt the Turks. They send planes over the border (having got the Americans to recall their patrolling aircraft) and bomb whole villages into oblivion.

[Ramo]

Umm.. yes, that's the point. Either Baghdad will re-establish their control over the Kurdish North, or Kurdistan will declare independence and Turkey invades.

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh, I misread your post. I thought you said 'slaughtered again', which would imply that they aren't being slaughtered now.

[Ramo]

I did say slaughtered. I just edited right after posting because I wanted to generalize the repression to non-slaughtering activities (the forum doesn't note edits immediately afterwards).

When I wrote "slaughtered again," (or "screwed again") I meant a larger-scale process. For the most part, the Kurds in Iraq aren't subject to Turkey's attempts in "punishing terrorists."

[GeneralTacticus]

No, they're just subjected to aerial bombing. It would be a lot harder to cover it up if they went all the way.

[Ramo]

Yep, the EU might not accept them if they restart their genocide.

[johncmcleod]

I said it before and I'll say it again: you give them too little credit. They knew that communism wasn't a real threat to them, only to their plans to dominate the Third World. It therefore had to hamstrung, or destroyed if possible, in Vietnam to prevent it from serving as a good example to others. Classified documents from that period all attest to this.

I disagree. If we were trying to take over the Third World, we've done a terrible job at it. How many other countries have we taken over recently and claimed it US land?

As I said before, the 3 million Vietnamese is a huge exxageration. Yes, that many died in the more but most of the were VC with guns. The United States has admitted many times that we made a mistake. Vietnamese forgive them for what they have done. My parents' good friend was a pilot in Vietnam. He bombed this supply route many times. He went on a trip to Vietnam this year, and he met a Vietnamese that worked on the same route. They had dinner together and shook hands, the Vietnamese accepting the American's apology. We know that we were wrong, that's why there were all those protests, and we're ready to move on.

Europeans love to bring down Americans in every way they can, and they always bring up Vietnam. If you saw a German person on the street, would you say, "Your are so evil! You let Hitler come into power and murder millions!" I think not. Germany knows they made a huge mistake, and everyone forgives them now.

About helping the world, look what we do in Africa. We try to stop revolutions, and we give them millions per year to help them fight AIDS. And it isn't even our business, either. We could say, "No. We can't help you we don't meddle in other nations' affairs."

They refused to hand OBL over without evidence, and damn right too. No-one ahs ever bothered to present any evidence whatsoever linking Al Quaeda to September 11, yet that they committed it is accepted as fact. Rather reminds you of when the Maine blew up and the blame was immediately placed on Spain, giving an excuse for the US conquest of Cuba & the Phillipines, or the 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident', which was purely a fabrication.

Bin Laden said he did it. If someone confesses they did something terrible, knowing that a lot of people will want to kill that person, then I think that's enough evidence. For some stupid reason, the Taliban didn't hand him over. Why would you not hand over a mass murderer? We would you try to stop the others from getting him? The Taliban seems to me like an accomplice.

*YAWN* A government which is completely dependant on US support (Karzai even goes around with US guards), led by a former consultant to an oil company which is now planning to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. If you think a war for this purpose isn't one of conquest, then do you also consider the Japanese invasion of Manchuria to have not been for conquest?

Of course the new Afghan gov is based on US support. It's only a couple of months old. It would need help I say. It still isn't a war of conquest. Getting rid of the Taliban is justifiable, we gave them a chance, and they blew for some reason. Bush is now taking advantage of this and using it to get oil. It's bad, yes, but what would YOU do if you were president? Go completely against the public's will?

Then explain why the media has never reported the above bombing in Iraq, the millions of innocent Iraqis who have died because of US sanctions, the US establishment of the Contras in Nicaragua to go after 'soft targets' with the intention of destroying the Nicraraguan economy, the activites of Nazi-esque death squads in El Salvador, or the thousands of Somalis who were killed by US forces during the intervention there.

Could you explain how our government murdered millions of Iraqi civilians? And about the Somalians, well, we didn't go around Somalia in order to murder as many civilians as possible. We went in to get some warlords (which would actually help Somalia) with as little bloodshed as possible, and then thousands of civilians with guns charged them. What would you do if you were a soldier there?

About your free press argument. Look what the media did in Vietnam. They showed all this bloodshed, and it made everyone real mad and it fueled all the protests.

About your argument of us not bombing Tokyo. You claimed if we did it would make the negotiation process harder. If we did bomb Tokyo, Japan would have no leaders and the war would be over very fast. They would surrender immediately. But we didn't do this. We wanted less people to die. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't the second and third biggest cities, either. Your suggestion wouldn't be a very good idea. The Japanese soldiers committed suicide all of the time, and I don't think starvation would do a whole lot to make them surrender. Also, this starvation would cause a whole lot of civilians to die. It would take too long and it wouldn't be a sure way to end the war.

Of course everyone gets mad at the US for its wrongdoings. A whole lot of countries are very mad at us for considering war on Iraq.


Sorry for taking so long to reply. I got Age of Mythology for Christmas, and I got my grahpics card problem fixed and I've only been playing that. Plus, 7 finals and a whole lot of research for a debate tournament.

[johncmcleod]

Oh yeah, I forgot about the second part to my argument. Whether or not Saddam has the ability to do a lot of bad stuff right now is completely missing the point. Saddam could get maybe a nuke from let's say, North Korea, send it to a terrorist cell in the US, thousand maybe million would die, and he'd blame it on Al Qada. He's an expert terrorist, he can do this.

Also, don't forget North Korea. What does removing cameras at their nuclear weapons facilities tell you? They sold nukes to Yemen, violating a treaty. Who will they sell to next, terrorists? Saddam? North Korea could be a major role in the death of millions. They also have a large military and I have seen signs hung up in nuclear weapons facilities that show a bunch of nukes hitting and destroying America. Doesn't this say something? Iraq and N. Korea have the potential to kill a whole lot of people and cause a whole lot of destruction (fallout destroying the environment and crops). The US won't do something like this.

[GeneralTacticus]

I disagree. If we were trying to take over the Third World, we've done a terrible job at it. How many other countries have we taken over recently and claimed it US land?

It's not about amking them US land; that's far too obvious. It's about making sure the government do what teh US tells them, by any means necessary. Economic, prefarably, or miltiary, if necessary. Vietnam was an instance where the miltiary was necessary.

As I said before, the 3 million Vietnamese is a huge exxageration. Yes, that many died in the more but most of the were VC with guns.

I'll say it again: I suppose the people in My Lai, or all the North Vietnamese you bombed because you didn't like their government, were VC carrying guns. That's a damn lot of VC, and a damn lot of guns. You'd think that if you killed three million o them, they'd be pretty much wiped out, wouldn't you?

The United States has admitted many times that we made a mistake. Vietnamese forgive them for what they have done. My parents' good friend was a pilot in Vietnam. He bombed this supply route many times. He went on a trip to Vietnam this year, and he met a Vietnamese that worked on the same route. They had dinner together and shook hands, the Vietnamese accepting the American's apology. We know that we were wrong, that's why there were all those protests, and we're ready to move on.

Good, then. However, the fact that you (as the American people) know that you made a mistake in supporting the war, does not mean that the war shoudl be forgotten; it absolves you fo supporting it, but it doesn't make it any less wrong. Just puts the blame on this who conducted and supported it.

Europeans love to bring down Americans in every way they can, and they always bring up Vietnam. If you saw a German person on the street, would you say, "Your are so evil! You let Hitler come into power and murder millions!" I think not. Germany knows they made a huge mistake, and everyone forgives them now.

Yes, because the Nazis are dead. The people who were the real evil are dead. Moreover, no-one has said that you, or Americans generally, are evil.

About helping the world, look what we do in Africa. We try to stop revolutions, and we give them millions per year to help them fight AIDS. And it isn't even our business, either. We could say, "No. We can't help you we don't meddle in other nations' affairs."

I think the Africans would be quite a bit better off if you stopped selling guns to their rulers. Not only does it suck up funds that are desperately needed in other areas, it also permits said leaders to prolong the various wars going on there.

Anyway, you seem to think you have only two alternatives: either you meddle in every aspect of other countries' affairs, or you're totally isolationist. Why don't you try just sending humanitarian aid and let the countries deal with their own politics?

Bin Laden said he did it. If someone confesses they did something terrible, knowing that a lot of people will want to kill that person, then I think that's enough evidence. For some stupid reason, the Taliban didn't hand him over. Why would you not hand over a mass murderer? We would you try to stop the others from getting him? The Taliban seems to me like an accomplice.

And when did he confess it? AFTER THE INVASION BEGAN. So he admitted he was responsible. Fine, go get him. But if you have evidence, you present it, you don't say "We can't show you, so hand him over anyway." and then find some other evidence in the process of going after them.

Of course the new Afghan gov is based on US support. It's only a couple of months old. It would need help I say.

It's now more than a year old. And really, it doesn't seem that a whole lot has changed, except for one thing: the place is no longer divided by an actual civil war. This is, of course, good, but it's not enough.

It still isn't a war of conquest. Getting rid of the Taliban is justifiable, we gave them a chance, and they blew for some reason. Bush is now taking advantage of this and using it to get oil. It's bad, yes, but what would YOU do if you were president? Go completely against the public's will?

Well, for one, apparently two Pakistan Islamist parties did some negotiating with the Taliban, and had agreed on a deal under which OBL would be extradited to Pakistan, despite the fact that no evidence was presented. An international tribunal would then examine the evidence and determine whether or not to hand him over to the US. The US vetoed the plan and instead went into Afghanistan to find him, which resulted in many more people dying and him getting away, which will likely lead to more deaths.

So, bascially, I'd look to see if there was some way of getting the Taliban to hand him over via diplomacy first - and if that didn't work, then at the very least, I'd try to make sure that the country wasn't effectively governed by warlords again, which is what has happened.

Could you explain how our government murdered millions of Iraqi civilians?

By destroying the water filtration system and withholding the parts they need to fix it, along with various other medical equipment.

And about the Somalians, well, we didn't go around Somalia in order to murder as many civilians as possible. We went in to get some warlords (which would actually help Somalia) with as little bloodshed as possible, and then thousands of civilians with guns charged them. What would you do if you were a soldier there?

You went in to get one warlord, who wasn't really any better or worse than any of the others, and whose son you are now funding as part of the War on Terror, and according the CIA, you killed 7-10 000 civilians in the process.

About your free press argument. Look what the media did in Vietnam. They showed all this bloodshed, and it made everyone real mad and it fueled all the protests.

Yes, and that was basically the only time it happened, becaus the US government has since been very careful about avoiding large US casualties. They've either waged their wars by proxy (as in Central America), or else done it mainly from the air (as in Iraq).

About your argument of us not bombing Tokyo. You claimed if we did it would make the negotiation process harder. If we did bomb Tokyo, Japan would have no leaders and the war would be over very fast. They would surrender immediately.

By whose authority? If the emerpor was dead,t here would be no-one with the authority to surrender at all. Nor would they be very likely to want to.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't the second and third biggest cities, either. Your suggestion wouldn't be a very good idea. The Japanese soldiers committed suicide all of the time, and I don't think starvation would do a whole lot to make them surrender. Also, this starvation would cause a whole lot of civilians to die. It would take too long and it wouldn't be a sure way to end the war.

Well, tiw ould if you agreed to the deal to make the Ermperor immune from prosecution for war crimes. That was the onlyr easont ehyw ouldn't surrender. I mean, if you were told that if you surrendered, the person you considered your god would be treated like a criminal, would you be very likely to surrender? I wouldn't.

Of course everyone gets mad at the US for its wrongdoings. A whole lot of countries are very mad at us for considering war on Iraq.

Yes, and it seems you aren't paying a whole lot of attention to them. Moreover, they onlt protest US wrongdoing when it's particularly blatant. Most of it isn't, so it slides.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the second part to my argument. Whether or not Saddam has the ability to do a lot of bad stuff right now is completely missing the point. Saddam could get maybe a nuke from let's say, North Korea, send it to a terrorist cell in the US, thousand maybe million would die, and he'd blame it on Al Qada. He's an expert terrorist, he can do this.

'Expert terrorist'? When was the last time he carried out that kind of terrorist attack?

Quite apart from that, where's the proof that he has WoMD? The inspectors have been in Iraq for weeks, if not months, and all they've found are some empty chemical warheads that never contained anything except air.

Also, don't forget North Korea. What does removing cameras at their nuclear weapons facilities tell you?

It tells me they want some kind of bargaining chip when they're dealing with the US.

They sold nukes to Yemen, violating a treaty.

They sold missiles. If they'd tried to sell nukes, both countries would likely be holes in the ground.

Who will they sell to next, terrorists? Saddam?

Why would they want to do that?

North Korea could be a major role in the death of millions. They also have a large military and I have seen signs hung up in nuclear weapons facilities that show a bunch of nukes hitting and destroying America. Doesn't this say something? Iraq and N. Korea have the potential to kill a whole lot of people and cause a whole lot of destruction (fallout destroying the environment and crops). The US won't do something like this.

Ever heard of Agent Orange? It caused massive environmental damage to Vietnam. Or how about depleted uranium? The rate of cancer, birth defects, and other nuclear-related diseases has sky-rocketed in southern Iraq since the Gulf War which employed hundreds of tons of it.