Tell me when the world was at peace more...... every thing you read about the old Brittish and Roman Empires they were always fighting. There wasn't a peacefull day back then. I'm not talking about wars. I'm talking about the constant fighting and killing that occured on a daily basis between nations battling for more ground. If you read your history you would understand the norm for our planet before the existance of the U.S. was sheer hell. For thousands of years. Not a 4 year war here, a three year war here, and a two month war there. Celtic legends were created out of life long battles between Scottland and Ireland. Some emperors and kings spent their entire life just taking armies out to fight against neighboors and revolters. Communism died because of our pressure. It was the pressure of democracy that brought down the Kremlin. If it was not for the U.S. to provide that pressure, Communism thrives today. I shouldn't have to explain this. Just because humans have automatic weapons, nukes, and high powered aircraft does not mean we live in a more volitile state. Would you rather take on 20,000 men with only a sword? Every day, waking up and wondering who you will have to fight next? Traveling hundreds of miles to fight hand-to-hand for years? And then loosing means your country is done, the next one takes over, and the battles all begin again.

 

No, I didnt say how many people died because of the program. I said how it's inadequate in feeding them. The economic sanctions placed on the country after Gulf War 1 are whats causing most of the damage. Lets respond with a comment directed at something I actually said ok?

The norm of the planet would still be like that if it werent for the advent of MASS COMMUNICATION and modern diplomacy. The US didnt start spreading its wings until after the second world war. So were talking about 60 years. You think you can compare the last 60 years with the last 60 centuries? That sounds so much like the republicans saying that the rich 1% can **** over the rest of America and that America as 5% of the world population have the right to tell the rest of the world how they're going to live. Now about communism - US pressure didn't bring down communism. US pressure couldnt bring it down for 60 years. In the end it fell on its own.

 

On account of what the people of the USSR saw in the USA and Britain. You don't think Regan's famous "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down that wall!" speech had a profound influence? That was one of the most powerfull speeches ever given by a President, and I'm sure inspired more than a few people to topple the communists. I'm not saying that's the only reason, but the promisses of democracy were too heavy to keep the communists in power.

 

ok, I'll give you credit there. That certainly was a contributing factor.

 

you're selective quotation is mindboggling. let's get our head out of our ass ok?

the reason that the oil for food program was "inadequate" in feeding the iraqi people is not because of the program its self(as you have alluded to and stated, not only in this thread), but because that "food" that was given for oil did not go to the people as intended, but to the tip top of the hussein regime as his people were left to fend for themselves. as i previously stated, if you want to point the finger of blame at someone, please try to point it at the source and not the one that the left has chosen as a scapegoat.

and you say you hate sheep. do i sense som selfloathing there?

 

Which President are you wanting to impeach here? The economic sanctions were causing the most damage? Saddam tortued people, cut out their tongues and committed ethnic cleansing because the US wouldn't help the country? Teach me this new logic of yours.

 

it's called liberalogic and you're only allowed to use it if you have an anti-right comment that you can't prove otherwise.

sadly you usually wind up contradicting yourself in some way and eventually your true colors shine through.

 

We have a duty to protect ourselves, not spend money that can improve our way of life to kick someone out of power because Dubya doesn't like him or because he tried to kill his daddy. It really sucks the conditions that those people live under. The people of that country that really suffer are the children because they arent allowed basic necessities for a decent life because of UN Sanctions. They arent allowed pencils for god sakes because Saddam can supposedly use the lead in a weapons program. It's horrible; it really is, but until we fix our problems, who are we to go around the world and shell out money to fix everyone elses problems? There are other ways to help the Iraqi people that wouldn't have costed $7bil or whatever it was. Dubya has had one duty as president so far to complete. The promise to catch Osama Bin Laden for 9/11. He hasnt. Exactly 6 months later, to the day, he was quoted stating he "didnt know where he wasn and that it wasnt a priority". Last I checked, none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi nationals. The point of the conversation was should Emperor Bush II be impeached for provoking a war for no reason. You guys keep saying he did the right thing but the bottom line is they still havent found WMD. That was what his big push to go to war was, and they havent found them. If they do, I'll start saying that there was a reason to go to war. I wont say the war was justified to protect our skinny little asses. I'll say it was justified because of violations of UN resolutions about WMD in Iraq.

 

*scratch head* So are you for or against helping them?

 

those are about the two most contradictory statements i think i've ever read on this forum. so which is to blame? the UN for the sanctions imposed after iraq attempted to take over another country without provocation. or Saddam for wanting to horde weapons and wealth at the expense of his subjects? make up your mind chief.