JordanUl wrote:

America gives the lowest percent of any country, in the world.

Canada gives more, even with our population. Although were not saints. We dropped from 5th place to 13th in the list.

Ok, those are both lies. America does not give the lowest percent of any country in the world. America gives less than Canada and any European nation, but not in the entire world. Secondly, by "Canada gives more, even with our population" I assume you mean the actual amount, since percent is based usually on GNP or GNI which obviously already factors in population. America gave, according to the OECD, about $13b more than Canada in 2003. That's over 7 times as much.

I'm not claiming that America is doing as much as it can or should, or that we're necessarily more generous than Canada or anything like that, but at least try to get your facts straight when you make claims like that :)

JordanUl wrote:
Say there are two communities side by side. One, with a large wall around it, doing what they want, not taking anybody else into account. But it doesn't matter because they have this big wall, and everybody is rich, so they were able to build it.

Next to it is a community without a wall. One where people don't step on anther persons toes. Not pacifists, but doing what is right. People aren't angry at them, so they just leave them alone.

What is right, Jordan? I wasn't aware of any universal right way. Is right taking a dictator, who has killed his own citizens, out of power? Maybe it's letting him kill more over time to save the lives of those who would die in the proccess of taking him out of power. It'd be nice to have a clearly correct choice all the time, but it's all a matter of opinion.

Don't think it could work? How militarized is Switzerland, how many times have they been invaded, and how are they doing financially.

How are they doing what's right, if they're just sitting idly by while we do all these wrong things? They're completely nuetral, which means if China decided to take over Canada, they wouldn't help you. Guess who would? Those wrong people who jump into other people's business.

I'd like to have world peace too, but it's just not going to happen. All of the sudden everyone has the same moral code (which consists of being non-violent) and never defies it? Not very likely.

You should have said this in your first sentence, because if > you did, then I would not have even wasted my time reading > your post. You cannot tell us Americans how to handle the > war, you have no idea how we feel about it. If you were an > American who witnessed the World Trade Center crashing down, > then I would respect your post, but you are not. Everybody, > and I mean every American who witnessed that wanted to goto > war with Iraq, they did not care who did it, they wanted to > bomb the entire damn country, now they are crying over the > war, I do not get it anymore. The pain that inflicted on us > is undescribablel.

"Somebody attacked us! Let's go and attack another random country that had nothing to do with it! Because we were attacked, that makes it moral!"

I'd like to point out at this juncture that the invasion of Iraq killed more civilians then the September 11th attacks.

Going to war with Iraq is the best thing we can do right > now. Saddam Hussein threatened us with chemical weapons. > What the hell did you want us to do? Sit around and see if > he really had them? Easy for you to say. We warned Saddam > Hussein, several times actually. He refused, knowing that > we were going to goto war. He did not care if his people > died, he does not care the least bit. He actually sent his > men in knowing that each one of them was going to die, and > we still gave Saddam Hussein a fair trial. We gave him the > chance to plead not guilty. We gave him that chance after > threatening us with chemical weapons, tortering people, > and God knows what else.

It is nothing like the best thing you could do. Saddam NEVER threatened you with chemical weapons he DID NOT HAVE. And finding out whether he had them or not was the job of the weapon inspectors that WERE IN THE COUNTRY before the war, and had to leave because you STARTED IT. He never sent any men in, except when he was being invaded. That's PROTECTING YOUR HOME. It is not immoral to do that. He never threatened you with chemical weapons. Furthermore, America is ust as guilty of torture as Saddam. Heard of a place called Abu Ghraib? If that was just sickoes in the military, what do you call Guantanamo bay?

I will tell you one thing, no way in hell am I going to > sit around and wait for another attack. And in another one > of your posts you mentioned that everyone hates us. Do you > think we give a crap? Let them hate us. They hate us > because we have everything they do not. Freedom. They > cannot hate us that much because every single day people > risk their lives to come to this country. Every single > day. They hide in the cargo area of airplanes, hide in > crates, ETC. just to come to this country to have a better > life. Other countries are trying to put us down, and we > simply will not stand for this. Going to war was the only > and best thing to do at that time. There is no reasoning > with them, they are monsters, they do not care for human > life. They stone people, that is sick. Only a true > American can understand this.

Sitting around and waiting for an attack is NOT the same as invading a country that had NOTHING to do with it. If America was attacked by a group of Indonesians, and the government declared war on Vietnam, that would make no sense, and it isn't ferreting out potential dangers. The comment about not caring if people hate you is part of the attitude that leads people to hate America. In a generic sense, most (note that I said most, not all) of America doesn't know a thing about other countries. The stereotype of British tea-drinkers, Chinese people doing odd things, and Crocodile Dundee Aussies in the Outback, with no water and funny hopping things are well and tuly alive in America. So you're hated. It should be something you care about, because if Americans had a decent education system, this attitude would vanish and you wouldn't be quite so easy to hate. Which means less terrorism. It has nothing to do with your "Freedom", which is slowly evaporating as we speak. Other countries are not "Trying to put us down", they are making logical points that poke huge holes into the reasons for you going to war. Anyway, some of these people are Americans too. Terrorists care plenty for human life. They feel that they are being repressed and attacked by a hostile nation, America, and that to protect their family they must act. It's because of the extreme poverty of those nations, and because America is very good at setting bad examples. They might stone people, but you give people the death sentence. Cultural difference.

Oh yeah, and one more thing. People talk about how Iraq > has become a bigger recruitment center for terrorists now > that this war started. I have news for the people who > think this, no friggin' Sh*t! It is a war! They are > recruiting people to fight against us! And I should not > be using the word 'recruiting' because they are not 'new' > terrorists. The people they are 'recruiting' have always > been terrorists, they are just joining up now instead of > attacking seperatley.

When we say that people are being recruited because of the war, we mean that because America has attacked a middle-eastern country for no particular reason, it is much easier for the leaders of terrorist groups to convince people that America is their enemy.

May I just add that the sentance: "Texans start reaching for their weapons", isn't necissarily a bad thing. Sure, you people get all pissed off that Americans reach for their guns when confronted by the enemy instead of asking them in for dinner, but you're the first ones to beg for help when you're in trouble. And if you have a problem with what I said, you could always just invite me to dinner, I'll bring my gun.

I don't recall ever defending Saddam Hussein, or even... Mentioning him. Hmm. Interesting point of view you have.

And you have info that anybody wants to invade Canada? Frankly I am more afraid of an American take over. Let's humor this idea of yours. Say somebody did want to invade Canada. Well, they wouldn't. Which is what I was saying. In our entire history, the United States has been the only nation that has attempted to invade us. Nowadays only a country with a completely incompetent leader (Ala North Korea) would try something like that, because it would send shockwaves around the world.

And finally, no, it is not very likely that world peace all of a sudden happens, and that everybody has the same moral fibre. But I'm being an idealist right now, and what history points to is that what the US is doing now is wrong. I hate Saddam, as much as you do. Talk to a person who studies human behaviour, a history professor, or a sociology expert, and ask what they think of the war in Iraq. Talk to nearly anybody at any of your top universities, it's all the same. History repeats itself.

If everyone was non violent I could take over the world with a butter knife (loosly paraphrased from Scott Adam's "Dilbert")

JordanUl wrote:

Because destroying a country and not rebuilding it would charge Bush with war crimes punishable by death.

Causing damage to a country in war isn't itself a war crime. You really should learn more about the history of warfare, or even just understand the general terminology, before saying stuff like that.

War crimes involve deliberate targeting of civilians, choosing positions calculated to make your enemy attack civilians, and certain offenses against prisoners when both parties are signatories of the Geneva Convention and operating under its rules.

Lummox JR

Not rebuilding it would be a bad thing?

You're afraid of an American take over? That's not our thing. We're the super heros of the world that get dispised no matter what we do just because we're the best (*makes cheesy reference to the movie "Spiderman"*). The whole jihaad idea wouldn't be pointed at the Americans if we weren't so powerful. They see a crappy world that they live in, they hear that America is to blame, in times of struggle things of such proportions have been believed before. Hitler said the Jews were to blame for Germany's economic turmoil which stemmed from the fact he was not accepted in a Jewish art school, and possibly because his mother died at the hands of a jewish doctor who used an experimental treatment, combined with his own personal experince with the German working party who viewed jews as their scapegoat as well.
You should really be concerned with the Chinese, they're the scariest, they are not run by the morally conscience and influenced by the public, they're run by a cunning government whose interest is their own gain. Why have the Chinese built their army up so quickly? Why do they pressure us to give them nuclear secrets (Clinton did, and the UN is currently lobbying against us in order to pressure us into giving more secrets)? Think about it, they run their country like I would run the mob, nice on the outside and evil as hell on the inside. Use the unwitting public to build up my infastructure, and use what they've given me to own the general public.
OR you could be afraid of the many missing nuclear weapons that are unaccounted for. Whose hands are they in now? Did the Russians sell them to the North Koreans, did factions within Russia sell the warheads to the would-be jihaadists? Just a thought, nothing concrete, but there are definitly more probable threats to your country than the friendly US of A, who is more concerned with personal liberty than the weak minded europeans who fear the enemy knocking at their gate. That bury their heads in the sand, and pray the enemy will disappear. No, we're more concerned about doing what's right, than what's accepted. Don't fear us, fear them.

As opposed to everybody owning a gun.