[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Oh, I'm not saying the US has. In fact, one thing I hate about our country is our lack of involvement in Sudan, Somalia, and Rwanda. But I personally think we should do something.

But we're especially not doing **** about this because Israel is our ally, and going against your allies is never good.[/QUOTE]
What would be that something? Fight the warlords ourselves?

I'm actually with Freelancer too. Let the Middle-east have one large slug-fest. Perhaps after everyone is bloody-nosed and black-eyed will they start being reasonable. Or they just start round 2.

So even if your ally turns out to be a real *******, you shouldn't go against them just because they're your ally? Oh yes, blind trust is such an excellent idea. >.>;; If you ask me the jewish/israelis are turning into the very thing they once ran away from if they keep this up.

"Hm, two troops kidnapped, LET'S INVADE! EX-TER-MINATE!" That's about as stupid as you can get. >.>;; I haven't seen invasions starting over such a thing before.

But ehem, anyway, I think the biggest problem with the middle-east is that all parties involved are very short fused people. Only Israel has the biggest guns attached to those short fuses.

Yeah, until they start going bigger, and better, and all of a sudden either chemical, biological or god forbid nuclear warfare pops up.

People who say "let the middle east sort itself out" piss me off :\

[QUOTE=Pedro T Hutt]So even if your ally turns out to be a real *******, you shouldn't go against them just because they're your ally? Oh yes, blind trust is such an excellent idea. >.>;; If you ask me the jewish/israelis are turning into the very thing they once ran away from if they keep this up.

"Hm, two troops kidnapped, LET'S INVADE! EX-TER-MINATE!" That's about as stupid as you can get. >.>;; I haven't seen invasions starting over such a thing before.

But ehem, anyway, I think the biggest problem with the middle-east is that all parties involved are very short fused people. Only Israel has the biggest guns attached to those short fuses.[/QUOTE]
Hey, don't ask me, I'm just stating how things are, not how I think they should be.

I wonder why all these idiots don't just get together in a desert and nuke themselves... I mean, same effect but more immediate and effective.

Oh... want to hear stupid reasons of invasions? How about when Mexico was invaded by the French because we broke some cakes.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Yeah, until they start going bigger, and better, and all of a sudden either chemical, biological or god forbid nuclear warfare pops up.
[/quote]
Slippery slope argument == bad

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]People who say "let the middle east sort itself out" piss me off :\[/quote]
Why? It's not our job to go around the world breaking up every fight. Are you pissed off that we're not intervening or have not intervened in the Russian-Chechnyan conflict?

Russians are commies lol

Muslims are terrorists lol

Whatever, Israel should start kicking asses around there anyhow.

And videotape it for me.

I lack some recent neat war material - especially those which do not include DESERTS.

Obviously, it would be inhumane to not stay out of this affair. Although I believe there are worse affairs, but this one takes the cake for lasting so damn long. Seriously, these people don't know the word peace. Let alone tolerance.

People who say this piss ME off. Islam is a religion folks... Al Qaeda is in extermist sect that does not count with the support of all the Muslims.

It should be noted, as you have all ignored, that isreal did warn the populace of souther lebanon 72 hours in advance. They even told them where they would strike. Isreal litterally said 'Hey dudes, we're totally going to blast the hell out of your airports in like three days dudes!' Now, why are they striking the airports? Simple. The Lebanese government does not control the southern part of it's country, and admits it. The place is owned by the terrorist group Isreal is after, who also has a strong hand in the Lebanese government itself. It's also simple military common sense. Take out the infrastructure, and they can't strike back.

I also find it hillarious that the terrorist group fired 50 some rockets into northern Isreal and managed to kill exactly two people. WTF, why even bother?

Cue. Eff. Tee.

Why? It's extremely applicable in today's society.


Why? We can "tear down a corrupt regime", we can put a dictator out of power, but when over 1,000,000 lives are lost in a civil conflict, we sit back and watch. We interfered in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and the Gulf, but we couldn't even save the lives of millions in Africa. They're people too, just like you and me. They deserve a right to live. I understand where you're coming from, don't get me wrong, but you have to realize we've interfered in so many conflicts as is that had much less impact on human life than a lot of the slaughters in the mid-east/africa, yet we refuse to enter that territory. Why?

Why is one human life rated more highly than another?

And you talk about it as if it's passe. "Oh, people are dying, who cares?"

I care. If I lived in that area I'd care a whole lot more. Maybe watching Ghosts of Rwanda just set me off (no, I haven't watched it recently), but I realized how ****ing jank our drive to preserve human life is, how fake it is, and how it's always gotta be for our own personal gain somehow. Why can't we just go in and save some lives, help spread the freedom of life and liberty that we ourselves like to enjoy so much, that we Americans talk about spreading to Iraq and Afghanistan?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Why?[/quote] You just answered your own question.

And you just forgot to read my entire post.

Gratz on the inability to pass elementary school

I just don't get the passe regard to human life. The "who cares" attitude towards some living, breathing human. Seriously, how would you feel if everyone who saw you dying just said "Oh, well, that's not my problem."?

Don't know about you, but my brain would asplode if it had the same level of compassion for every living being as I do for my family.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]:words:[/QUOTE]
I'm not all pleased about the fact that Middle-east has to duke it out. I'm not uncaring that lives will be lost. But unfortunately, this is probably the only means to get a resolution.

We interfered in Vietnam and that brought us no resolution at all only 50K Americans dead and some much larger number Vietnamese dead. We interfered in the Korean Conflict and we ended up with a stalemate and a dictator in the north with small penis syndrome. We interfered in Iraq. While undoubtedly some good did come from that (no Saddam), it's still a tumultous region. Our track record for interfering with other nations isn't all that promising. We interfere (more than we do) with that conflict, it could turn all kinds of ugly. This is why I take the stance of let them settle it out. If we had a better record of interference, then I'd be less isolationist.

I'm not talking about having "the same level of compassion for every living being as you do your family", I'm talking about basic ****ing human compassion. If we didn't have that, we would've never interfered with World War 1 or 2 or anywhere else. It just always seems to be placed rather close to our own personal wants and needs as a country.

You're just another fundie who could give two ****s less about other people. Enjoy your regime while it lasts.

Dalf--I understand we don't have a good track record, but there's something to be said about trying. FFS, the conflict in Sudan is still ongoing, and we've yet to resolve anything there. We actually WENT to Somalia, but got pulled after only 10 or so of our troops died. Troops will die, it happens in conflicts/war. The American people couldn't understand that. Rwanda we didn't **** with because of Somalia, and that's the one we should have lent our support to the most.

Watching Romeo Dallaire, a decorated general crying about the atrocities he saw in Rwanda, and about the loss of life over there just made me realize how ****ing stupid our "spreading of freedom" really is, and how it's just an excuse to get what we want. A means to an end.

I'm sick of that kind of attitude in America, I'm sick of the wrong things being targeted by the media machine, and I'm sick of all the goddamned politicians drawing view away from the real horrors of today in third world countries, horrors that we in our comfortable king seat of the world forgot about hundreds of years ago, yet are just being met by the people who are too poor, to isolated to know any better.

I'm just coming from a practical viewpoint. We can't save the world. As much as it would great to do so, we can't solve each and every one of these little conflicts. The United States has only a finite amount of resources. Not to mention we have to divert those resources to our OWN needs. Quite frankly, the rest of the world isn't really pitching in a lot. They demand that we pick up the tab.

Somolia and Africa in general is all kinds of ****ed up. Colonialization didn't really do a good thing to that continent. It is going take A LOT more than the United States sending some troops in to smack some warlords down and sending $$ and/or food. If that contenent is going to be fixed, it's going to take the world to do it, not one nation. And, some of the nations of Africa need to get it through their heads that tribalism is a BAD THING.

Moral of the post: The United States shouldn't be fixing the world when the rest of the world doesn't want to fix itself.

1) I'm not asking we help everyone, just pay attention to the conflicts that are important, not silly dictators playing God.

2) Military resources don't really accomplish any of "our own needs".

3) The rest of the world ISN'T pitching in. But we are America, not the rest of the world. The only nation whose action we control and are responsible for are our own.

4) I agree totally that Somalia and Africa are in a very, very bad way right now. I also think that some American presence along with some good, positive reinforcement that not everyone in the world is corrupt and that there will be help when you need it would go a LONG way to helping the continent grow and prosper.

5) It's not the rest of the world DOESN'T want to fix itself, it's that it can't. We're a part of this world too, I think we learned that in the era of World War II, and we forgot it somewhere along the way to here. The people of the world are just that--not the people of the nation Uzbekistan, not the people of the city Rome, not the people of the suburbs of Monte Carlo, no, they're humans, the people that we inhabit this world with. We owe them to at least try and extend the freedoms we have to them, even if unsuccessfully, if only because we, too, are humans. Or at least that's the impression that I had.

Well. I should probably clarify that the "rest of the world" really means the EU in my eyes. Of course I'm not going to expect Papua/New Guinea or the Philippines to send significant resources. If they do give some, that is great that they can. But however I am expecting France, Germany, Russia, to pony up a little bit more. After all, the problems are just one Mediterranian hop away.

The world gets mad when we try to help. No matter how well meaning we are, it only ticks people off. It's best to stay out of it unless people involve us in it.

I'm starting to ignore those people/nations. We can do no right in there eyes. It's like their sole purpose in life is to ***** about the United States. I hope these type of people are diminishing in #.

You're still not listening--we don't control them. We can't tell them what to do. We can only control ourselves, what we do. Making up excuses like that is childish. "MOM, THE EU WON'T HELP JIMMY SO I'M NOT GONNA", except there's no mom. It's like a bunch of ****ing children running around playing Government.


They get mad at us one way or another. The absolute best thing to do is just to ignore them and do what's right, not what the rest of the world is screaming at you to do.

Also, please try to make it so I don't have to take time to decode what the hell it is you're trying to say.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]You're still not listening--we don't control them. We can't tell them what to do. We can only control ourselves, what we do. Making up excuses like that is childish. "MOM, THE EU WON'T HELP JIMMY SO I'M NOT GONNA", except there's no mom. It's like a bunch of ****ing children running around playing Government.[/QUOTE]

We are heavily involved in the Middle East and Asia, both in terms of relief and aid (for the recent natural disasters), to military action (Iraq & Afghanistan), to trying to keep trigger-happy dictators from going wild (N. Korea & Iran). We are spread out, and we don't have the resources, by ourselves, to fix the problems of Africa. This isn't a matter of "France won't help, so we won't, either"; it's a matter of "France, Germany, Italy, and Russia won't help, so the little that we can offer won't make any difference".

That's a goddamned lie. We were in Somalia, we were helping them, but Black Hawk Down happened and we pussed out. We could have easily entered Rwanda, and would have gotten UN support had we entered, but the UN was wrapped up in the same train of thought that Dalf seems to be sporting. Nobody else was helping, we can't make a difference, blah blah wah wah. Someone has to start the helping.

EDIT: The reason we don't interfere with these countries is the same reason for things like "No Child Left Behind", the continual support of the corrupt Welfare system, and sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, along with the illegalization of weed. If you even touch the subject, it's a political nightmare and many a career can be ruined in the process. That's the problem--our government's representatives are more concerned about their careers than what's right, what's good, and what makes sense.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]stuff[/QUOTE]

Personally, I blame pussing out in Somalia and Rwanda on Clinton. That's not because I'm conservative, but because he had a horrible track record with this sort of thing. Anyway, we already do give more than the rest of the world combined in aid. What we really ought to do is instead of giving away fish is, so to speak, teaching nations to fish. We need to get nations to where they can solve their own problems. I'm not sure if this is already being done or not, but I'm not aware of it. Then again, maybe alot of the world isn't able to solve their own problems without intervention. I donno.

No, it's not about "we give out too much aid", it's about "we give out too much aid in the wrong way to the wrong people". Yes, we do a lot for the people of the world, but not the right people. We don't officially give any aid to the people of Africa, mainly because of the warlords and how they'd exploit any aid we DID give. I do agree with the "teaching nations to fish" statement, but first they have to just be able to survive.

And Clinton wasn't the reason we pulled out and didn't do anything--the American people were. Clinton tried helping, but the people of America didn't want to help, then he got pressure from Congress because they decided that it'd look good for their careers if they went along with what the vocal majority thought.

The other problem is the American people were uninformed. They didn't know what was going on until Black Hawk Down basically, then all they knew was some of their soldiers died in a conflict that didn't affect them. It didn't take much for them to rationalize us pulling out.

Clinton may have had a little fault in the matter, but he was most definitely did not hold the most blame, much less all the blame.

We shouldn't be saving people who don't want to be saved. Unganda case in point. And Clinton always did what people wanted him to do. That's why he was popular.

And really, if people don't want freedom enough, we can't give it to them. They have to want it enough to overthrow the tyrants themselves and set up the government themselves. That's the only way it will work. And that's why Iraq is not working now. It won't work until all of Iraq rises up and drives out the terrorist them selves. We can lead them to the door, but in the end they have to open it. That's what everyone forgets. It's one thing if we help people when their cause it just, but if they don't want the cause enough to die for it the cause it self will die.

Also, we have to think of our soldiers. They are people too. Should we send them out to die for some crazy person half way around the world who'll hate us for helping anyway? I sure as heck wouldn't want to do that. There are very few people I would die for. Money doesn't fight wars, people do. War has it's place but we can't go in guns blazing every time there's injustice. What are we going conquer the world and force it to live under our own laws?

People think of the US government as an institution with infinite resources that could, if it wanted to, end hunger, poverty, wars, provide free health care and free everything. It can't. What it does do it can't do well; it's a bureaucracy. People depend too much on the government and the tax dollars of their fellow citizens. People need to realize that the government can't and should do some things, even though they need to be done. It's just not it's place.

We can't be responsible for the worlds problems. We are responsible for our own problems- if we can helps other by doing that great. But if we make every problem and injustice our business, just like we rule the world, then we should rule the world. If we have to take care of them like we rule them, we should rule them. But the world doesn't want that and we can't just go conquering the world just to help.

Uganda.

And he didn't always did what people wanted, he did what the people needed. People didn't want stricter enforcement on Welfare, people didn't want a lot of the **** he did, but they realized it's what they needed. You're wrong about "that's why he was popular", he was popular because our economy boomed and he strengthened our nation economically and socially with very little socialist implementation.


No, they don't have to "want it" to overthrow tyrants. They can want it all they want, but you forget about a thing called technology. The tyrants own guns, explosives, well-trained armies, and are working on a very small scale. You're talking countries where half the population serves the government in some way because they need that many people to keep things running. When you have even 1/3 of the population with guns against 2/3 with sticks and stones, you quickly find yourself righteously ****ed if you're on the revolutionaries' side. Also, Iraqis say they're extremely thankful to us for helping us rid them of Saddam, albeit they do want us out. I doubt that's a nation that "didn't want it badly enough". That argument is bull**** and you know it.


Our soldiers aren't people, while they're in the service. They are fighting machines, they get paid to live and die for the wishes of our government. They may as well be mercenaries with loyalties. Money DOES fight wars, whether you believe it or not, as everyone can be bought, and for most people the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force has just the right amount of money to pay out.

Also, I already stated I'm not saying "Let's fight every injustice", not right now, but you obviously have no clue what happened in the Rwanda/Somalia conflicts. Between the two over 1 million people died. One million. That's bigger than the standing army of China for chrissakes. I'm not talking war either--a war on Somalia or Rwanda would end in days, not weeks months or years.

Also, that last statement--1) Ask bush, 2) We're not forcing them to live "under our laws", we're forcing them to accept that they cannot commit genocide under any circumstances. The UN has outlawed genocide, made it a war crime. That's what happened in Rwanda. We had every goddamned right to go in there "guns a blazing", and we didn't.


I already told you, but you are obviously too thickheaded to hear me--we had the resources. We were already in Somalia, we had a presence, we were fighting and doing our thing, and we pulled out because we pussed out, not because we "didn't have the resources". Rwanda, we would've been backed up by the UN had we gone in, and between us and the UN we would've easily been able to quell the conflict. But once again, we were stuck to inaction. You have no grasp of what went on, what goes on in these conflicts. That much is obvious. Stop talking until you read up a little bit.


No, we should have a little ****ing compassion for our fellow humans. They're not toys, they're not little beings that don't matter, they're ****ing human. What if it was your best friend? Your brother? Your father? What if they were the ones dying because they believed in something the tyrannical leaders didn't like, what if they were the ones being slaughtered just for being born?

Over 130 civilian casualties in Lebanon already. And Israel still claims to be only attacking Hezbollah targets.

Oh and, correct order of events:

1. Israel attacks, destroying infrastructure first
2. Israel drop leaflets warning Lebanese citizens, telling them to evacuate, but all the major roads and bridges have already been destroyed
3. Israel attacks again

Ironic sequence of events. I'd laugh if it weren't so goddamn tragic. Why don't they just attack military targets? It would gain them so much more support. I really don't understand this response.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Uganda.

And he didn't always did what people wanted, he did what the people needed. People didn't want stricter enforcement on Welfare, people didn't want a lot of the **** he did, but they realized it's what they needed. You're wrong about "that's why he was popular", he was popular because our economy boomed and he strengthened our nation economically and socially with very little socialist implementation.
[/quote]

Some of the things he did reeked with insincerity. (Like the accident after he gave the speech about that one guy.) But really that's a conversation for another topic.

Forgive me, I haven't exactly read this whole thread.

But in response to ORJ_Jos' question, "why don't they just attack military targets?":

Hezbollah isn't a civilized military organization. They plant themselves in populated places full of civilians in order to discourage Isreal or other agressor from attacking. That's why Israel has been dropping leaflets with warnings for civilians; so they can get the hell out of there before the area get's pummled. The problem with this is that Hezbollah militants can read these leaflet warnings and move operations somewhere else where they won't be under fire. Either way, when these militants die, civilians die with them. And it's convenient for Hezbollah because it also helps build bitterness toward Israel among Lebanese residents.

Israel is at least trying their best to take out Hezbollah guerillas, while these guerillas are firing their old and inacurate Katyusha rockets into random northern Israeli towns and farms. I think the difference is clear. Hezbollah seeks to cause trouble, and Israel is merely trying to protect itself. Israel always seems to be the subject of hate and violence from surrounding Mid-East countries, and I'm glad (in a grim way) that they are choosing to defend rather than just take it.

Oh, good support there bucko.


1) You act as if anyone can buy an AK-47, and as if 5 dollars is a trifling amount of money. Remember, the people in these nations are suppressed by tyrannical leaders not just physically, mentally, and spiritually but economically. The only reason "selfish" causes get off the ground is because they're usually funded by the US, some random nation, or some business/interest group.

2) People do start selfless causes--all the time. They just don't ever get the notoriety to be helped, because the media is geared towards the atrocities that occurred, not why they occurred.


True, to a point, but I never implied they were psychopaths. I'm merely saying what they are. Despite why they joined up, their wants, needs, everything except for how well they can shoot and if they can hold a gun don't matter. The US doesn't ask them what they joined up for, they just accept them, and use them. That's the reality of the military. So yes, they are machines to be used as a leader sees fit, whether they like it or not. That's what they're paid for.


No, I don't think you read anything I said--we HAD ALREADY COMMITTED THE RESOURCES. Read. Please. In Somalia, we already had troops on the ground, in the area, and they were pulled out because of the BHD incident. Seriously, you keep repeating the same bull**** and I keep telling you why you're wrong, and you won't listen.


Now we'd have to start a draft, yes, but what about when our army was doing nothing in 91? I'm not asking for everyone to go out and help everyone else right goddamned now, I'm asking that we commit resources to wars we can fight when we can fight them, saving millions of lives instead of sitting back and watching the slaughter occur. We could've easily gone into Rwanda, we already were in Somalia, but we chose not to do ****. Instead, a few years later, we decided to "tear down Saddam's corrupt regime", as if him killing people recklessly (don't get me wrong, he did some ****ed up ****) was worse than a genocide that occurred over 5 weeks, one that broke the laws that the UN, not the US, set down, and that nobody did a damn thing to stop. I'm not talking about current so much as I am current compared to past. How is Iraq oh so much worse than Rwanda or Somalia?


No, I'm enraged at our responses to things that happened. Yeah, bad **** happens I realize that, but you don't seem to be grasping that one million, let me repeat that for you one million[/u][/b] people died as a result of US and UN inaction. Do you get it yet? Not one hundred, not one thousand, not one hundred thousand, one million. One million plus, in fact. In two conflicts that could've easily been averted had we committed the resources we had ready to go. The problem is the people, true. But have you ever heard of the saying "To not stop the problem is to become a part of the problem"? Or "Through inaction one becomes a part of the problem"? Because those two sayings fit pretty goddamned well.


You failed miserably.

Quote.

Are you serious? We've only got 135,000 troops in Iraq. We have 1,450,689 active duty troops in the armed forces. We aren't the world's superpower for no reason.

Concerning the Clinton bit-Perhaps I also shouldn't have said "Clinton". I mean the administration at the time (which I'd say he has influence over).

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]EDIT: The reason we don't interfere with these countries is the same reason for things like "No Child Left Behind", the continual support of the corrupt Welfare system, and sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, along with the illegalization of weed. If you even touch the subject, it's a political nightmare and many a career can be ruined in the process. That's the problem--our government's representatives are more concerned about their careers than what's right, what's good, and what makes sense.[/QUOTE]

Nail on the head. Problem with Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan etc. is that it would have been incredibly unpopular military action. Especially since most of the American populace can't see an benefit to helping these people. Thing about the Middle East is that there is hope of stabalized oil prices if the fighting in that region stops. Honestly, anybody who says our involvement in the Middle East past Afghanistan (Afghanistan was about retaliating to a direct attack on the US) isn't about trying to stabalize oil prices is misinformed.



Along those same lines, that's the reality of every military plus every terrorist organization. Which is one of the reasons I have no sympathy for the Hezbollah terrorists or the Israeli military. We should do everything we can to prevent civilian casualties. And I agree with you that we should have been in Rwanda to stop the genocide. Innocent civilians caught in the crossfire should be evacuated or defended as much as possible. However, if two military organizations want to duke it out, we have no obligation to help either side out. True that Hezbollah aren't really an army, but the members know why they're there and know that they can die.

Any innocents we should strive to protect. But the Israel military duking it out with only Hezbollah? We have no obligation to either side.

[EDIT]It seems that Delphian has said what I was trying to say with much more elegance. So I agree with him.

From what I understand Israel isn't exactly attacking Hezbollah at the moment, and instead are going after citizens.

Why? I don't know.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]From what I understand Israel isn't exactly attacking Hezbollah at the moment, and instead are going after citizens.

Why? I don't know.[/QUOTE]
Because the Hezbollah aren't a standing army. Militant groups tend to like to hide in with civilians.

Edit: what exactly are the Isreali's attacking anyway? Last I heard it was bridges, roads, and airports. Anything new?

I guess they're trying to disable Hezbollah...ironically, they're disabling residents as well.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Oh, good support there bucko.
[/quote]





You know those news videos. Where every person has an AK and is firing them into the air? They're not hard to obtain. The people have to support the selfless reason. They have to be willing to die for it. That's the only reason we exist. We had a bunch of guys who risk their lives, for justice equality and all that other junk that made this county possible. Barging in on our own and shooting the current dictatorship won't do squat. It's just a power vacuum we have to sit on while the population fights for their stupid religious/hereditary/racist causes. Iraq could be the richest nation in the world right now, just like Kuwait. It's got more oil than any placein the world, by far. We're pumping staggering ammounts of resources into them to give them a chance. But, like children they care more about their own petty problems than establishing a nation. When we leave, it will become just like Lebenon.



Do you think people become soldiers are there for the pay? Are you serious? Any serviceman would laugh at that notion. They don't get paid crap. You're describing a mercenary. Ask and serviceman, that's not what they are. Not even close. Still, I'm sure that many of them would fight to help people. I just think that we ought to have a good obtainable cause. Preferable one that protects us in some way give our limited options. Ousting some warlord and setting a new one that will inevitable be just as bad is not a good use of life or money.



Not enough, and we didn't comit to the war. You have to start what you finish. Vietnam was the exact same thing. [hint] I'm trying to agree with you here. [/hint]



It's not. Despite what Bush says, the only reason we went to Iraq is because we thought he had WMDs that he'd try to use agisnt us. (He would have if he had them too.)



What are you going to do? Shoot crap and wait for the next slaughter? It's not an occupation army, it's the population that's the problem. One part hates the other and warlords capitalize on it.

Can we go on abortion clinic shooting sprees because they are doing partial birth abortions. It's been clearly proven that they are conscience humans. We kill babies every day. Right here at home. The world's falling apart. Maybe we should try to help when we can. Perhaps we should fight. We can't win. Make no mistake, this is not a fight agisnt people or even ideas. This fight is a fight against human nature. There is something wrong with us that goes way beyond survival instinct and circumstances. It's blindingly obvious. I don't like people. I have given up on them. It's not the bad guys, it's the realization that most everyone is a bad guy with, or with out opportunity. Some have the upper hand some the lower. That's the way it is. Sure we should do what we can to help, but I guess what I'm saying is that I wouldn't die for them.


I see the problem too, and I used to be of your same opinion. I'm just saying we can't fix it. Damage control at best. Should we dedicate our nation to that thankless, even hypocritical task? Well, that's the question. It's not as black and white as it seems. Tell me your reason, Yoshi, with out the melodrama, why should we? A clear logical answer, not "just because".

I just don't know. Jerks.

That doesn't make it okay to destroy the inferstructure of Lebanon... plus so far at least 85 civilians have died