America kills innocent civilians

And you Americans all condone it. What a bunch of savages.

>>78
It's really difficult to fight a war on more than 1 or 2 fronts.
That and China is a bit different.  They have a horrible government, but it's bound to change eventually considering their growing economy.  Also, fighting China would be fucking insane.

In the case of the middle east, there's almost no fuckig chance of reform unless someone for the outside interviens.  If you left the middle eat alone for 100 years it would still be a shit hole ruled by despotic mad men.

>>80

Something that poses an existential threat to all of mankind. For example- if our ozone is paper thin and the rest of the world has committed itself to never using oil again and so on and let's just say CHINA is still doing nuclear tests and letting high emissions into the atomsphere- then we go to war. And try and demantle their infrastructure if diplomacy doesn't work.

If someone is planning to take over the whole world, no matter WHO it is or WHAT system of government they use- then we go to war. If there's mass genocide (racial, religions, any reason), then we go to war.

We do not go to war to spread our system governments, we do not go to war to cover our asses economically, we don't go to war because we need to protect our natural resources-interests. These are bullshit reasons to go to war.

I mean come on, they should be pretty obvious. And even WHEN we go to war we should weild our power with wisdom, patience, restraint and be able to treat our enemies with some fucking dignity- instead of resorting to petty racism, propgandist smear tactices, critiques of their culture and society, etc etc etc. Things, I might add, that we frequently accuse the enemy of to this very day.

And to conclude this, there are realistically in an 'adult world' there are Very, VERY few instances where war or the inklings of war were even nessacary, history tells us this over and over and over. Isn't it about time we looked at things differently?

If you left the middle eat alone for 100 years it would still be a shit hole ruled by despotic mad men.

BZZZZZZZZZZZ. WRONG.

It is because we didn't leave the middle east alone that it turned into a shit hole ruled by despotic mad men. Who do you think the Saudis are? The greatest democratic minds of our era? GET A FUCKING CLUE ALREADY.

>we are not animals, we do have a choice.
Actually, we are animals. gb2/elementary school kthxbai

>>everyone that is saying that "america isn't going here or here where there is a facist regime, a dictator, or a political terrorist,  would you really shut up if we went to those places, or would you just bitch more? 

>>85 ultimate truth, these people are the ultimate paradox, no matter what they say, and no matter what you do you're wrong

>>85
 ultimate fail.
this doesn't nothing to address the fact that there are far more pressing dictators and political terrorist threats than Iraq. Darfur poses the biggest threat to America's image as anti-facist to date. You guys can bitch all you want, but the inactivity is just plain fucking wrong. we shouldn't be in Iraq. we should be in Saudi Arabia, maybe Iran, we should be kicking all of the Arabs out of North Africa. instead your argument is basically: "you hippies are the ultimate paradox so stfu". this isn't about hippies, you dumb fucks. why is that so fucking hard to understand? are you going against common sense and obvious ethics just so you can stand out? so you can feel special?

>>87
But how would american celebrities have a chance to look charitable if the US solved all the problems in the world? You have to think about these things, people must suffer so celbrities look charitable when the US finally helps them. That's how she goes.

>>88
LOL, This one speaks the truth.

>>82
      So we don't go to war to spread our government politics but we do go to war to spread our environmental policies and other politics.  That is just compareing apples to oranges.  You have the right to run your nation however you want as long as you run it the way we tell you.  You just want everyone to go to war on your issues and not somebody elses.  And it is a bad example anyways.  If the rest of the world decided to stop using and producing oil, where the fuck would china get it from?

>>83
     It is because we didn't take out Stalin right after Hitler and had to deal with the Solviet union for the next 50 years that we have the problems in the middle east.  That and we handed Isreal to the Jews which really pissed them off as well.  We were fighting the Solviet Union throughout all that time, and we only had interest in nations that they were going after.  If Stalin hadn't been so paranoid and intent on spreading communism with force, we wouldn't have gone to those nations and interfered.  True that we could have done a better job cleaning up after the conflicts were over, but in many ways that's what we are dealing with doing now and you are still bitching.

>>87
     My point was that your argument was invalid because dealing with it wouldn't change the issue any.  If you were to say that we shouldn't drive cars because they are dirty and polute the environment, making a car that was clean and didn't polute the environement would deal with that side of that issus.  You are bitching that we are selecting our battles and only going into certain nations and pointing out that we aren't going into every facist regime, when you know perfectly well if we did you would then be bitching about that, therefore it is a invalid argument.    You are right that we should finish up iraq, then go into Iran, however I would much rather just back out of Isreal and just let the destroy eachother.  Saudi Arabia is something that we need them for an ally, and the Saudis know this.  It is a more sensitive situation.  China I belive can be handled best with economic pressure.  However I agree that all facist regimes that threaten the US need gone. 

>>88
       I personally don't care about celebrity politics and don't pay attention.  If they make a good movie fine I will see it, but that doesn't mean I want to hear your speaches about politics when you pat eachother on the back and say what a good job you did.  You aren't real people, and

>>90

combo fail. i'm not talking about 'politics' dumb-dumb. I'm talking about systems of governing people under a set of core ideals. <====== that, is not compariable to environmental policies and SCIENTIFIC DATA. who gives a fuck where China gets the oil from? the whole point is that oil use is an EXISTENTIAL TREAT TO HUMAN KIND. if China or any other country doesn't want to get with the program- then that is a good reason to go to war.

second: we are NOT dealing with shit now, you douche-vomit. dealing with it would be attacking the Saudis, Iran, dismantling all the despotic regimes in North Africa that we stray away from for economic reasons. what we're doing now is just so fucking sad that it's rediculous for you defend it. this proves that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

thirdly: you seem to be suffering from flawed logic. i'm not "bitching" that we're "selecting our battles" or "not fighting every battle" you shitbrain. we are selecting THE WRONG BATTLES. and me "bitching" about something doesn't immediately make my argument invalid- did you even attend college? are you really this fucking stupid?

>>90
and... what? I'm sorry I don't make the rules, if I could I'd turn the wolrd into a giant theme park and everyone would shit chocolate fondue, since I can't we just have to make the best of what we have to work with.

>>91
       "i'm not talking about 'politics' dumb-dumb. I'm talking about systems of governing people under a set of core ideals." that definately makes one of the top ten dumbest things ever said.    And you are forcing your politics and psudo-science environmentalism down everyones throat.
         Like I said I would take care of those issues if I was in power, I am not.  I have to live with the fact that bush is taking care of more of them than kerry would have.  I pick the one that will deal with more of the things I care about and fuck me over the least for the next four years.  And the lesser of the two assholes.  However stop pretending that if we were in all those regions that you wouldn't bitch.  Hell I would bitch.  We don't need to go to all of them at the same time.  Systematic elimination of one after another is in order.  Howeveer Bush isn't going that far, and that is fully his fault and the congress isn't willing to let him go that far.
          I am in college now btw.  And I am pointing out that your bitching isn't invalid.  It is the fact that your bitching about a detail you would still be bitching about if it were changed.  If you want to bitch about the hipocracy of it and point this out as an example it would be one thing, but very few do.  It  would actually be a great retorical argument if you actually let it be known as such.  But your politicans spread to be a simple attack about the lack of force being used, knowing perfectly well that we can't act to do what they are suggesting without them bitching even more.  We are going after the ones with the most power that have the most direct threat to us.  Although in complete honesty this is an argument against a general group of people so using it on you in particular is probably foolish and making me too fast to pass judgment.  If You honestly don't fall into that group than sorry, I was stupid to make the generalization that you were.
       I wish we would go after all the African dictators.  I think we should hang them from the trees by their testicles and watch them flap in the wind.  they are monsters, just like Sudam was.  I will admit that economics and politics made Iraq a more attractive target for Bush.  However stop acting like we are getting huge oil profits from them and we are just carrying away all their resorces and going to abandon them afterwards.  And china can be handled better with economic pressure.  They can outman us by several times, but all those men need to eat and everything else that ours do, that is where we should apply pressure.
       I may be being too hard on you here by catagorizing you as thee people that are bitching that us killing these people won't make the world better.  Kind of like the people that say the world isn't better without Sudam in power, or that Iraq isn't.  However we SHOULD finish in Iraq before we start going everywhere else.  The information that we had going into Iraq was wrong, that doesn't mean we don't still have a job to finish there before we move on.  And Sudam not having WMDs doesn't make him a good person and a fair rulers.  He needs to be handed back to the Iraq government, given a trial by his people, and quickly and cleanly executed.

USA FAILS HARD MOTHERFUCKER

"that definately makes one of the top ten dumbest things ever said.    And you are forcing your politics and psudo-science environmentalism down everyones throat."

no i'm not, you fucking crybaby. "psuedo science environmentalism"---where the fuck do you get this shit from? the situation posed was a HYPOTHETICAL, in the first place!! in the second place- the environment is an entirely different debate that has cold hard facts backing it up. there's no religion about destroying the planet, it's not even a question of IF we're doing it or not, it's more like: "how bad it be?"

as for the rest, all I have to say is that "the stuff you care about" is dictated by whoever's been a polarizing force in America for the last 40 years. you may care very deeply about alot of different shit, but you don't have a clue about what actually matters

What about you damn Europeans and your diseases and wars and slavery and empire and ... nevermind.

>>96
We've already been through this, whites aren't more or less immoral, it's just that they are better at everything they do. I don't think whites are more moral, to begin with, but as their civilisation grew and learned they began to generate new ideas of morality and become more moral, though the large scale effects of this only occurred recently. Civil rights are dependant on democracy and liberty. Would Nazi Germany have permitted civil rights? Would China have ever seen liberty if whites weren't around? Which is worse?

Since China would never even touch liberty and the nazis would at least have the concept of liberty, this means they were closer to achieving it (if it isn't even a possibility, how can you be close to achieving it in the first place? the nazis were more libertarian than the chinese) and thus China is more evil than the nazis.

So the best form of govenrment is a white or northern mongoloid majority democracy which allows immigration and emmigration, but only from the best and brightest from across the globe and  the forced emmigration of all criminals. The best form of world rule would see a eugenics program that would humanely see the extinction of inferior races (contraception), to create places for lower populations of people selected for being free from genetic disease and having at least an acceptable level of intelligence.

>>83

Exactly.  The instability in the Middle East is precisely because of interventionist meddling and sticking our nose in their business that we did previously this century. 

Interventionism is fucking stupid. 

>>97

That isn't a very libertarian idea at all.  You'd enforce this with big-government?

>>97
My question is how the Chinese is more evil? They never believed in "ethnic cleansing" and killed millions of Jews.

>>100

The Chinese government is communist.  They are authoritarian communists... the most absolutely anti-freedom form of government possible.  Or, authoritarian socialist, whatever.  It's beside the point.  Not only is their government horribly corrupt, pisses all over the individual and civil rights of it's citizens, it has been responsible for MILLIONS of deaths over the last century, and continues to be oppressive even now. 

http//www.amazon.com/...