something to think about: We spent over 200 billion dollars on the "war" in Iraq. This is of course a huge amount of money. Personally, i believe that we could have done many better things with this amount of money than start an unnecessary war, such as feed 5,333,333,300,000 starving people acording to calculations based on information from Food for the Poor Inc.

No i dont think what our goverment is doing is ok i think that it is screwed up and our goverment needs to get a clue. But then again if bush went into sudan and stopped the genocide it would set the anti-war protestors off even more. And i wasnt pointing the finger at muslims, i was just saying that it is muslims killing christians in this case

quote:

This is my theory on sudan. Muslims are killing christians, and our leaders dont want to **** off the muslim world anymore then we are so we are just looking in the other direction.

and thats ok? that doesn't tell to anything about the morals of our country's government?

Well damn, Muslims are always the bad guys. Screw the Crusades, screw the prostitution in medieval priests, the molested boys, the Salem Witch Trials, oh no, Christians are the Saints of the globe...

This is my theory on sudan. Muslims are killing christians, and our leaders dont want to **** off the muslim world anymore then we are so we are just looking in the other direction.

Reactionary, I wish I could find the time you said that the US donates the most money. Till then, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap . And if it wasn't you, nevermind it.

One cannot defeat an idea. It is, after all, an abstract thing. An idea can only be wiped out if no one believes in it, or if it fails because of its own internal conflicts. The latter applies to National Socialism. No one defeated Nazism as an idea. Sure, the Allies all but wiped out the Nazis, but the idea itself still survives to this day. Therefore, it obviously has not been defeated.

quote:

Originally posted by karenmaraya:

quote:

Why, because it is an idea? We have defeated ideas before.

like when, and what idea?

1945. National Socialism.

quote:

Why, because it is an idea? We have defeated ideas before.

like when, and what idea?

quote:

We aren't terrorizing anyone, look up how the State Deprtment defines terrorism.

i really don't care what the state department thinks, i know we are terrorizing people. if we are fighting terrorism, why are we doing hardly anything in Sudan. how is genocide not terrorism?

quote:

No, you were just to uneducated pn the manner to have a civilized debate about it. All you couyld say is A cased B, and b maybe caused C, which is bad, so A is a moot point. It was childish.

you are the one who is not able to have an civilized debate, because even though i make good points all you can come back with is

quote:

A foolish response from a foolish person. It is so foolish your point is moot.

about a point i made that was not foolish at all. because you realize that your arguements mean nothing because i have morals and you do not. go and read what i wrote last on the "terrorism is here to stay" board and then tell me my response was foolish

quote:

Originally posted by karenmaraya:
in case you don't know, Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, not Saddam Hussein. just thought i'd let you know.

The connections between Al Qaeda and Iraqi Intelligence are well known.

The Iraq--Al Qaeda Connections

quote:

you realize that we can never end terrorism

Why, because it is an idea? We have defeated ideas before.

quote:

especially not by terrorizing

We aren't terrorizing anyone, look up how the State Deprtment defines terrorism.

quote:

according to your president, we went to Iraq to "liberate" the people.

Which we did.

quote:

did i scare you off that other post, cause you have yet to reply

No, you were just to uneducated pn the manner to have a civilized debate about it. All you couyld say is A cased B, and b maybe caused C, which is bad, so A is a moot point. It was childish.

quote:

In the real world, we know that. In crazy town you don't think anyone knows that but we do. You ever said Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Bin Laden is not the only terrorist in the world. We are not figthing a war on Bin Laden, but on terrorism. Therefor we don't only need to fight Bin Laden.

you realize that we can never end terrorism, especially not by terrorizing. my point is that some people believe that we are in Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11. actually, according to your president, we went to Iraq to "liberate" the people.

p.s. did i scare you off that other post, cause you have yet to reply

money makes the world go round

quote:

in case you don't know, Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, not Saddam Hussein. just thought i'd let you know.

In the real world, we know that. In crazy town you don't think anyone knows that but we do. You ever said Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Bin Laden is not the only terrorist in the world. We are not figthing a war on Bin Laden, but on terrorism. Therefor we don't only need to fight Bin Laden.

quote:

Reactionary has probably been in the real world, instead of crazy town. The terrorists started the war on 9/11 (Actually they started it long before then, but that is what hightened our activities aginst them)

in case you don't know, Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, not Saddam Hussein. just thought i'd let you know.

quote:

how can anyone not think that helping the thousands of people who die from hunger every day but we should attack other countries?

We do prevent thousands of people each day from starving, open your eyes.

quote:

bush did start the war, where have you been?

Reactionary has probably been in the real world, instead of crazy town. The terrorists started the war on 9/11 (Actually they started it long before then, but that is what hightened our activities aginst them)

quote:

but we do have an obligation to liberate countries with oil?

Afghanistan had no oil. And if we went to war with Iraq for oil, why haven't gas prices fallen?

bush did start the war, where have you been?

quote:

The United States is not an international organization, therefore we don't have any obligation to anyone who is not a citizen.

you do realize that poverty and hunger are not only huge problems in third-world countries, but in the U.S as well. but we do have an obligation to liberate countries with oil?

is it our responsibility to police the world?
how can bush claim to be such a man of faith when he takes money from welfare to fuel his war? how can anyone not think that helping the thousands of people who die from hunger every day but we should attack other countries?

Bush can declare all he wants, the budget is approved by Conrgess.

quote:

i dont see how anyone can say that we should not police the world but it is our obligation to feed every starving person.

Because starvation is ussually within boarders, terrorists don't give a damn about boarders. And reactionary is right, we give more money to humanitarian aid than anyother country in the world by a factor of at least 2.

Killing people is much more important than feeding them, karen, don't you realize that?