So true. Thats what other countries dont get about us. One of the reasons is because our troops give/gave them those same rights.

 

To be more precise (thanks JP), we don't give you the ability, we defend it.

 

Thanks for the clarification

There's no question whose lives are on the line when it comes to defending those freedoms, I just wanted to make the distinction between where the rights originated and who fights to preserve them.

 

Speaking on behalf of most of you, you can/will never understand what it feels like to have your family in constant danger, and having your country being abliterated and bombed for no apparent reason... To have your people die, it's something that most people can't comprehend.. So I don't blame people for thinking the way they do, it's really not your fault.. I do however feel sorry for any of you that condone war in any fashion.. I can't fathom anybody supporting it, but of course, there are many that do..

I think people have to realize that there is more to life than your city, your neighbourhood, your block, your country.. Get out of the bubble that you're living in, and at least have some perspective or scope as to what is really going on. . . Everybody's been conditioned it seems.. Start thinking for yourselves a little bit and open up a broader horizon.. Beyond everything, there's innocent people dying everyday..

America spent so much money on the war, but they can't help anybody else.. They can't help their own people.. They weren't there in Rwanda when people were being slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands in '94.. Cuz there's no benefit.. "Too risky".. They have all this power and standing and responsibility in the world, and they are just a detriment to it..

 

Evo.....I have to give you credit for not resorting to the impassioned name calling that other seem to not be able to resist but I have to disagree with you on two points. First, there is a time for war. It is ok to disagree with this war if you like but sometimes war is right.

Sitting by and allowing Hitler to wipe out those he considered sub-human and allow him to enslave all of Europe would have been more wrong than standing up to him. I would find no other moral position, in my opinion, superior to going to war with Hitler. Furthermore, you go on to make examples like Rwanda, and by implication, the current situation in Darfur where we should intervene. How do you interevene in those situations without military force, which is by extension war.

Lastly, the US has interevened for humanitarian reasons in countless places, like Somalia, where others are to cowardly to tread. (read FRANCE) And no country spends more on humanitarian aid world wide than the United States and it is not even close. At the last world AIDs conference, France publicly blasted the US for saying that the money the US was going to spend on fighting aids in Africa would be spent on drugs but the drugs would come from US companies. A fair policy that US tax dollars spent on drugs should benefit US companies. France wanted the money used on cheaper drugs offered by French companies, not coincidently for monatary reasons. Chirac called the US policy despicable. What he failed to mention was that US spending on the AIDS fight was more than double the rest of the worlds combined spending, and over ten times what france was kicking in.

Don't believe the rhetoric about the US not being a generous nation because it is not true. You can disagree with US military policy, but the assertion that people here don't care about the rest of the world is total

 

I respect your opinion and well written, I don't know how much you know about American History but we have had our cities bombed and abliterated and it is because of those wars in American history that we enjoy the freedoms we have today, The American revolution was our war it just is in our past and many of the countries that are at war today are going through the same thing our country did a long time ago -

 

[QUOTE=yogi,Nov 16 2004, 01:28 PM]

Look, when we say that we're having fun or are excited to go in and raid a town - it is NOT because of the killing.

 

The reason for going to war was for the following reasons:

1. Saddam did not follow the guidelines put forth by the U.N. (not his first time)
2. EVERY country believed he had WMD(we were wrong but still a reason)


If it were for oil our gas price wouldn't be as high as they are today.

Our country did get bombed and a lot of Americans did die(family and friends). I would aslo have to argue that we did give france and germany those rights, because if hitler won, they wouldn't have them. In the current context, they are defending them.

Aslo, alot of innocent women and children aren't dieing. We have spent big bucks to make sure this didn't happen. If it were the case we didn't care, we would have been dropping some moabs.

The sad thing EVO is, our men and women are the ones over there giving their lives so an Iraqi doesn't doesn't have to live in the lifestyle you described. I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't have wanted to live under saddam.

You also dont hear about all the terrorist being thwarted by the men and women protecting us at home, which is part of the reason we don't live in fear.

 

[QUOTE=S2000_rider,Nov 16 2004, 01:47 PM] Interesting on how those who are GUNG HO/GI JOE about the war in Iraq are supporting the war because it serves the purpose of ensuring freedom for Amerika.
What you guys ('living in the Country of FEAR') fail to understand is that Iraq posed ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT to the freedom of the U.S.

 

That last article is completely bogus and has no basis whatsoever...the only fact they claim is that there website was getting more hits... They offer no evidence that any significant number is moving and after making these grand claims about holding seminars etc etc finally the truth comes out when the author reveals "He only expects about 100 people at each of the how-to-move-to-Canada seminars" hmm...100 people; a very significant number...

What credibility does a article have when it advocates breaking the law in its second paragraph?

And, as always, america wins hands down in the "people wanting to move here" category so why even try to bring up this point?

In closing its obvious the article is a sham at best, a sop at worst, relies on faulty inconclusive data, and is not legitimate in the least.