AtmaDragon said:
From what I've learned about WW2, it seemed to me the Germans would very likely have won without the Americans intervening. But if the Germans had won they would've just come after us, so to prevent that we fought and defeated them. Which is what we're doing in Iraq today; defeating an enemy before it has a chance to take over.
It's kinda the same with vaccines; you vaccine yourself against a disease so you never even get it. We're defeating other nations today so they don't become a problem tomorrow. The ONLY issue is whether we have a right to be where we're going. Though, since most of our media is liberal I don't tend to believe much of what they say about Bush is doing; he's a Republican so they want to make him look as bad as possible.
well as said before, the russians were strong enough to win the war.
and do you really dare to compare other countries with bacteria and viruses? are the people in irak afghanistan and the rest of the so called "axis of evil" an infection to you which has to be "cured"? how fucking arrogant is that?
what gives your nation the right to brandmark other countries as that and then "solve the problem" before it occurs? i already brought that up in my previous posts but apparently you cant answer that, most obviously because your country simply doesnt have the right to play worldpolice which it does anyways.
there is no just cause to invade and occupy another country and suppress its people. we have the UNO charta for that, and if you remember your nation is a member of the UNO and signed that charta, yet lateley it doesnt give a fuck about it. the term double standards comes to mind, when the unprovoced (altho that is a matter of opinion) terrorist attack destroyed the WTC and killed some 3000 people your whole nation called on moral standards and called the terrorists monsters etc, yet when you attacked iraq and afghanistan for no good reason (and there is none, till the day there is no proof that iraq had neither anything to do with the WTC bombing nor that it had WOMD) and thousands of civilians were killed in the campaign that was just fine for you.
AtmaDragon said:
Yes I'd agree people who torture animals should be punished, but I think they need a shrink more than anything else.
Maybe something more, depending on what they do, but capital punishment? That's a little much, seeing as animals aren't even human. Yes, animal torturers tend to grow up to become spouse abusers, but that doesn't mean they should die; a gentler punishment can fix the problem before it becomes a bigger problem.
"not even human" so? respect for life is the keyword here, just because they cant talk doesnt mean that they dont feel pain, it also doesnt make them "worth" less than a human. animals dont feel greed or envy, they dont kill on purpose, so in a way you could call them moraly better than us humans.
AtmaDragon said:
I'm not saying my country is perfect but it knows more of what it's doing than an outsider does.
well thats just not true, your media are extremely in line with the governement whenever i watched CNN or NBC, i never ever heard a critical word against the governement. in contrary, CNN shows the so called embedded journalism and makes war something "cool" to watch. i guess there are enough weapon and war enthusiasts in the USA who watch those emissions and find it cool when a platoon of american soldiers kills some iraqis.
also for all i know your educational system is quite a failure for the larger and poorer part of the US population so they probably dont read an independant newspaper who is critical against what the governement does.
of course your governement knows what it does, it knows better than anyone else, and it knows what it does is morally wrong, but it also knows no one can stop them so they do it anyways and call everyone unpatriotic or terrorist.
AtmaDragon said:
But why is war wrong in the first place?
well what can i say, i guess you just dont want to understand it.
but if war is ok, then what would be so bad about the USA being attacked? you people really need a war on your own territory to understand what it is for everyone else. to you WTC was the catastrophy of the millenium and everyone had to pity you now you bring war to other countries and turn their whole territory into ground zero.
btw, meanwhile in the 3rd world there are still 10000 children dieing of hunger every day, but who gives a fuck, they dont matter when some americans are harmed. so instead of spending the maybe 100 million dollar it would need to end the hunger in the world you rather spend 100 billion per year on weapons which you then use to bomb countries back to stone age.
there is also one particular country which is a lot more agressive and shows even stronger terrorist characteristica than iraq, iran, afghanistan and which actually do have WOMD; israel, but do the USA do anything against them? au contraire, they supply them with some billion dollars per year plus all the guns they need.
now the easy thing for you would be to call me an anti-semite, which would be a rather poor display of argumentational skill and you'd really miss the point, its not about who the israelis are, its about what they do, and that the USA allow and even support them.
? No! SO START UP YOUR UED AND FINISH THE DAMN MAP! 
, just illustrating the tight uk rules on firearms but the us government doenst seem to do so despite numerous killings.
![:\](/images/smilies/submitted/smark/ohwell.gif "Oh Well :\")
