then he should have stated that , you can help him discredit me ktog. present some facts showing where bush is responsible for more deaths than saddam , il jung, or the iranian nutjob, then i will stop my pro-american stance. take your time and dont forget to post links to where you found your facts .. i'll be waiting .

Didn't say i agreed, but i'm assuming that was meant ... that or he was exagerating. If thats what he meant then this would include many centuries of tyranical leaders.

I don't support trippers post just by the simple fact that Kim Jong Il basically starved 3 million people. (However so did Stalin and Mao)

i'm sure you would still classify bush as one of those leaders

eek:

No, not really. I respect a president for what he has to go through; however, I believe he made a poor decission on approaching this war. He isn't the only one to blame. There are many people in politics that had their own agenda and supported the war. The easiest way the could get legislation to pass is to the people there could be connections to Al-Qaeda (which were found, but not many) and they had WMD (which was false). Last president who lied was put on trial and all the president did was be unfaithful to his wife. She forgave him. Now that Bush was unfaithful to a whole country, don't we deserve an apology?

no what clinton did was commit perjury which as you know is crime along with the whitewater scandal, help cover up vince foster's death which could be labeled a homicide. cheating on his wife was the least of his concerns.

i agree there was alot bad intel in the iraq war.

That was an exaggeration. OMFG. I should have threw a "probably" in there as I didn't check the facts on that one, and it was basically my opinion.

Why don't you counter the rest of the post? There are points in there that were totally relevant to the argument but you just discarded them. I put some effort into that post. loney:

And for the last fucking time - ITS NOT AMERICA BASHING. We are arguing the U.S government's current foreign policy as it directly effects us all.

Don't say you're pro-american in this because that obviously means you think I'm anti-american. Which is SO not true.

If I was "bashing" america, I would slander all you americans, wouldn't I?

your comment about bin laden being responible for 3,000 deaths over a long period of time is wrong , the 3,000 dead came for sept 11th

the taliban knowningly let terrorist train there and did nothing to stop it , they actually denied it was even happening

you have more reason to trust a leader that lets his own people starve , rather than accept over 60 tons of food being offered for him to simply stop trying make nuclear weapons.



iranian leaders have stated that they want to see israel destroyed

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/i ... _11_03.htm

i dont recall president ever saying he wants to see a country "wiped from annals of history" thats why iran doesnt need nuclear weapons

I never said Bin laden, I thought you were refering too the dead Afgahn citizens that were killed by their own government. I suppose you think that september 11th is justification for killing 3,700 citizens of a nation whose government merely harboured the terrorists.

I know. Like I've said a couple of times, Afgahnistan is largely irrelevant to this argument - I dunno why you keep bringing up stuff I already knew.

We were originally arguing Nuclear weapons. You're driving the argument in another direction.

Well, If I was Kim Jong, I would be wondering why Bush is so intent on getting me to stop making nuclear weapons. I'd then question why on earth he thinks HE is allowed them, and I'm not.

Getting rid of my nukes would mean not only bowing down to a guy who declared me his enemy, but also would put me in a position that he could instruct me to do whatever he pleases with me at glorified gunpoint.

As a leader of an "enemy" nation, it was the smart thing to do. He's a dictator, I understand that. He does bad things, I understand that. Bush may not be a dictator, but there is evidence he got his presidency undemocratically, and unfairly. He also does what I consider, bad things.

This is why I believe that if for those reasons Kim Jong isn't allowed nukes, why on earth should Bush be allowed them?

Whatever, politicians say this and say that. While the Iranians have said they would like to see Israel destroyed - They haven't actually acted upon it. Bush hasn't said he would like to destroy a country, but he has actually done so.

What's the difference?

Honestly, I don't think Iran would ever act out an attack on Israel. I just don't believe anyone is stupid enough to blow up the world over it. If you do believe it, well then, IMO, you are a victim of fear-mongering.

If they wanted to blow up Israel, they could have and would have done it by now.


Bottomline in this whole argument: I think the current american government has no place to police the rest of the world. There is too much blood on it's hands, and too many unanswered questions and unaccountable facts.

How can you force democracy into other countries when you don't even have a fair democracy in your own country?

Until they actually set an example, and prove their intentions are good and that there are no alterior motives - They have no place to police the rest of the world.

I also think going to war with a country in order to save it is fucking stupid, and in the obvious examples, the end has NOT justified the means.

I think Saddam killed more of his own people than Bush killed of his own people in the long run...but bush is at least an accomplish to the reason Troops had to die for no reason, at leats in my opinion, that should of had their lives on the line in the first place.

clarify last sentence please.

yeah its pretty safe bet that saddam killed more of his own people than bush.

Well the point is...it is his own people...not america's...it's not like i am gfor killing your own people...but shit im sure america would have to bomb a fuck load of countries if that was their only reason.

I think the biggest misunderstanding people have about the armed forces is that when they join they are expected to follow orders no matter what. As long as congress and the president approve it they can send them out to buy a bag of Doritos or kill ever first born in the US. They joined the army to die for what ever congress (not america) sees fit. So i don't believe they are innocent lives lost within our army.

so then what gives people like cindy sheehan a reason to protest ? their children knew the risk when they Voluntered or Re-inlisted