My figures are sound -- look beyond the guilt propaganda. I am well-travelled to and within third world countries. I'm not fond of hotels anywhere in the world. I became accustomed to cots and tents.You can show a country how to purify water but, they will dirty the water again and again.
It's funny that people are so naive and will believe anything that somebody tells them. You may furnish the children some water for 19 cents a day but I seriously doubt even a single decent meal. But hey most journalists dont even believe Iraq had enough money to transport their wmds out of the country after the media advertised that we were going to invade for a full 4 months prior. Silly Liberals
On both of those points I yield to you, You are indeed correct that I mis-phrased that statement, the one you provided better defines my view. And It's true that saying "Its my fault" my also be less than accurate, However I stick by what I said before that.By saying "We should work towards solving World Hunger" we are accepting responsibility of an individual that is not us.That part I still feel is accurate and not something that, in the purest sense, is truly our job to do as other human beings.
How ridiculous. You're trying to say that if we weren't in Iraq the children of the world would be fed. So were they fed before we went in there? Would they be fed if we left? Why not?How many people fell for this piece of idiocy?
When we left Southeast Asia in, what 1975?, we cleared the way for the murder of millions. Who do you think the Khymer Rouge was? They were Communists, just like the Viet Cong. But a little less restrained.So the Khymer Rouge killed a third or so of the population in Cambodia, ten of thousands killed and millions condemned to lifetimes of grinding poverty in Viet Nam under communism. Why? Because the U.S. left and cleared the way.So what do you think would happen in Iraq if we left? Millions will be slaughtered. Anyone who voted will be killed. Anyone who ever spoke to an American will be killed. Anyone who doesn't want to be a slave will be killed. And the terrorists will take over, just as they did in Afghanistan. One difference. Iraq has tons of oil, so the terrorist will have all the money they need to buy weapons to kill us.But keep kidding yourselves with this "feed the children" malarkey. When they're sawing off your head it will be too late.
Hey... I've got a brilliant idea.... How about food for oil?!?! Yeah... we could kick all of the Iraqi's, Iranian's, Syrian's, and Saudi's asses, take their oil, trade it for food, and feed the children (and my SUV of course). Better keep the U.N. out of it though because we KNOW how corrupt their food for oil program was (is)!!!
ps.Try Living for a MONTH with no electric and no fossil fuels (no hot water).If you can manage, then you can rightly cry 'No Blood for Oil',otherwise keep surfing . . . Your electrons do not come without a heavy price.
I wish I could feed my children for $.19 per day.Why does the cild support system feel that is costs up to 65% of a persons net pay to provide for a child? Boy, is our government screwed up!! We need to feed our own starving people first.
""Umm, democrats were holding the military back during Vietnam, so where are you going with that?"Any war can be won if you don't care about the costs of winning. If you allow torture, accept collateral damage, and strip the civilians of their basic human rights, you could probably win in no time at all. Take a lesson from Israel.You'll be no better than the devil himself, but you will have won"wow, see, i couldn't tell if that was some ignorant slam on our military, or if you were talking about Saddam. I'm sure your unaware of this, but the war in Iraq is actually the most restricted war up to date. Additionally, the united states have given the Iraqi people more freedom than they know what to do with. Saddam systematically killed the Kurds and Shiites WITHIN his own country, and led a violent campaign of genocide. civil liberties wasn't even in his vocabulary. Try being a woman or a Kurd or a Shiite in pre-war Iraq. (but, I'm sure you would rather sit in your cushy chair staring at a screen typing out some anti-war sediment, rather than actually caring about the people in Iraq) But of course all of this is forgotten because it is much more vogue to be some president bashing liberal. So you may say, well we got Saddam, so why are we still there? Hmm... perhaps the US would like to gain stability, rather than watching everything the military worked for fall apart by pulling out to early.
flamingmothMar 19, 2007
My figures are sound -- look beyond the guilt propaganda. I am well-travelled to and within third world countries. I'm not fond of hotels anywhere in the world. I became accustomed to cots and tents.You can show a country how to purify water but, they will dirty the water again and again.
g3r7hMar 19, 2007
It's funny that people are so naive and will believe anything that somebody tells them. You may furnish the children some water for 19 cents a day but I seriously doubt even a single decent meal. But hey most journalists dont even believe Iraq had enough money to transport their wmds out of the country after the media advertised that we were going to invade for a full 4 months prior. Silly Liberals
fritzelMar 20, 2007
On both of those points I yield to you, You are indeed correct that I mis-phrased that statement, the one you provided better defines my view. And It's true that saying "Its my fault" my also be less than accurate, However I stick by what I said before that.By saying "We should work towards solving World Hunger" we are accepting responsibility of an individual that is not us.That part I still feel is accurate and not something that, in the purest sense, is truly our job to do as other human beings.
sunthe1Mar 20, 2007
How ridiculous. You're trying to say that if we weren't in Iraq the children of the world would be fed. So were they fed before we went in there? Would they be fed if we left? Why not?How many people fell for this piece of idiocy?
Closed AccountMar 20, 2007
When we left Southeast Asia in, what 1975?, we cleared the way for the murder of millions. Who do you think the Khymer Rouge was? They were Communists, just like the Viet Cong. But a little less restrained.So the Khymer Rouge killed a third or so of the population in Cambodia, ten of thousands killed and millions condemned to lifetimes of grinding poverty in Viet Nam under communism. Why? Because the U.S. left and cleared the way.So what do you think would happen in Iraq if we left? Millions will be slaughtered. Anyone who voted will be killed. Anyone who ever spoke to an American will be killed. Anyone who doesn't want to be a slave will be killed. And the terrorists will take over, just as they did in Afghanistan. One difference. Iraq has tons of oil, so the terrorist will have all the money they need to buy weapons to kill us.But keep kidding yourselves with this "feed the children" malarkey. When they're sawing off your head it will be too late.
viper57Mar 22, 2007
Hey... I've got a brilliant idea.... How about food for oil?!?! Yeah... we could kick all of the Iraqi's, Iranian's, Syrian's, and Saudi's asses, take their oil, trade it for food, and feed the children (and my SUV of course). Better keep the U.N. out of it though because we KNOW how corrupt their food for oil program was (is)!!!
leesoongMar 24, 2007
ps.Try Living for a MONTH with no electric and no fossil fuels (no hot water).If you can manage, then you can rightly cry 'No Blood for Oil',otherwise keep surfing . . . Your electrons do not come without a heavy price.
momszooMar 25, 2007
I wish I could feed my children for $.19 per day.Why does the cild support system feel that is costs up to 65% of a persons net pay to provide for a child? Boy, is our government screwed up!! We need to feed our own starving people first.
douglasfactorsMar 31, 2007
Just.
debasisgApr 1, 2007
Look at Bush, the criminal and you know.
hyperactvejennaApr 19, 2007
""Umm, democrats were holding the military back during Vietnam, so where are you going with that?"Any war can be won if you don't care about the costs of winning. If you allow torture, accept collateral damage, and strip the civilians of their basic human rights, you could probably win in no time at all. Take a lesson from Israel.You'll be no better than the devil himself, but you will have won"wow, see, i couldn't tell if that was some ignorant slam on our military, or if you were talking about Saddam. I'm sure your unaware of this, but the war in Iraq is actually the most restricted war up to date. Additionally, the united states have given the Iraqi people more freedom than they know what to do with. Saddam systematically killed the Kurds and Shiites WITHIN his own country, and led a violent campaign of genocide. civil liberties wasn't even in his vocabulary. Try being a woman or a Kurd or a Shiite in pre-war Iraq. (but, I'm sure you would rather sit in your cushy chair staring at a screen typing out some anti-war sediment, rather than actually caring about the people in Iraq) But of course all of this is forgotten because it is much more vogue to be some president bashing liberal. So you may say, well we got Saddam, so why are we still there? Hmm... perhaps the US would like to gain stability, rather than watching everything the military worked for fall apart by pulling out to early.
oldnikonMay 4, 2007
Hm... Things like this happen everywhere, unfortunately. This is sad....