[Nantuko Joe]

Are you one of those "50%" of the american population that believes that Iraqis hijacked the planes in 9/11? 'cause there wern't any.

No sh!it

As for Russians starting the Vietnam War.. sure, they were supplying weapons to North Vietnam. Are you so naive to thinnk the US wasn't doing the same thing? You remember the Cuban missle crisis? It was all about the USSR putting missles right in the US' "back door", when all the while, it was perfectly fine for the US to have missles in Turkey (right in the USSR's "backdoor"). Communism was/is a facist/dictorial regime... And by no means am I trying to defend communist those brutal dictors' actions.

We did not begin supplying South Vietnam with weapons until we actually sent our troops. not our advisors, but our troops.

And don't get started on the Cuban crisis. We were in the middle of the Cold War. Tensions were high with the USSR, and Cuba hated us. Then we discover that they were HIDING nuclear silos in Cuba. Lemme see...a communist country that we were having a tension between is HIDING nuclear silos 20 miles away from the US in a country that hated us. Hmmm...

But Russians were just as affraid of a nuclear holocaust as the US was. It wasn't just the USSR's fault the Cold War broke out. It was the US and the USSR's faults. The US "built the bomb" first, and of course, after WWII, was ready to spearhead an assault on Communism. However, after the Communists started building bombs to counter the US', what does the US do? Build more bombs of course! And that certainly would get them out of the mess... right? Wrong. The USSR just built theirs in response to US massive bomb buildings. Somewhere along the line, some jackass got the idea to start shipping bombs to other countries and building missle silo's where one country could nail the other... and so the other follows... and everyone's scared poopless the other's gonna nuke the hell out of them... so everyone just kept at a stalemate until one country caved in.

We made the first bomb. Not to be outdone by the US, the USSR said "Hey, they've got some pretty strong sh!it, stronger than any of our weapons" and not only created their A-Bomb, but they invented the H-bomb too. Then the US said "Hey, they've got some pretty strong sh!it, stronger than our A-bomb" and built something stronger, and so on...

And the shipping of the nukes to other countries wasn't due to USSR's direct government, I don't think. When they finally did an inventory of their nukes, there was something like 16 missing or something. It was an inside job. And USSR put their nukes in Cuba before we put our nukes in Turkey.

- The Philipines. While the US is busy siding with the rebels down in Cuba, why not free the poor oppressed people of the Philipines as well? As a matter of fact, why not give the local admiral in Hong Kong the word to mobilize for an assault on the Philipines before the war even breaks out? And after the US is done, why not brutally rule the Philipines and put the rebels in reconcentration camps? Thus totally hypocracizing the whole proclaimed reason the US went to war in Cuba in the first place. Not like the US wanted an "open door" to China or anything...

I have no knowledge of the phillipines and any US involvement, so I'll just take yer word for it

WWI. Sinking British liners and killing a some American passengers too?! And while in a state of war?! Truely an admirable cause for "freeing Europe" of the German threat. Oh wait, the trade seemed to be suffering at the time as well... since the US wanted to maintain it's neutrality and trade with both Germany and England, it decided to not get involved right away. However, since England had the stronger navy, it's blockade of Germany proved more effective then the ones around England... and a bit of English propaganda... the US sides with Germany. Not much to say there but keepin' the trade is vital. It goes, your economy goes... your next election goes.

Actually, Germany sunk the Lusitania as it crossed the Atlantic carrying food and supplies for Britain...THAT'S why (i believe) we entered the war.

WWII. Ever heard of Stalin? Not like the US or Russia ever got extremly freindly during the war (ie: after Normandy, it was a race to get to Berlin first in order to hault the communist threat). I'm not saying the US did a bad thing... Hitler needed to be put in his place... killing 6 million Jews, and what was it again? 7 million+ Russians? On a side note, the US bombing on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which killed off roughly 130,000 civilians is incomparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor, which didn't even amount to 5,000. A state of war and state of peace doesn't change the amount of people who get slaughtered purposelessly.

Actually, i believe it was 6 million Jews, and 6 million combined of Russians, gypsies, and gays. And there was no race to get to Berlin to stop a "communist threat." If I'm not mistaken, some of the US forces crossed a bridge somewhere in Germany, i believe, saw the remains of a group of Russians...and celebrated their victories with them and helped tend to their wounded. Tensions between the USSR and the US didn't begin until about a year after the war was over.

And the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was 100% unprovoked. The first a-bomb we hit them with was a bit overkill, i'll admit, but we gave them a chance to surrender, and told them that if they didn't, we'd a-bomb them again. They refused to surrender. They knew the consequences of their actions before we even bombed them. If they had just surrendered when we told them to, Nagasaki would be in one piece, and the casualties woud only be around 70 thousand.

Civil War. Free the slaves? Right... if you read the emancipation proclamation, you'd be careful to note that Loncoln didn't mention #### about freeing slaves that were in states still belonging to the Union. Only slaves from the Confederacy were freed... thus staving off the menacing threat of British interfearence. But I'm not saying any more on this war...

Um...actually, there were NO slaves in the Union...they were ALL indentured servants. As in: if they worked for their "emplyers," they'd get paid, have a place to live with their families, and if they worked for them long enough, they were given a % ownership of their employer's crops. They were fighting mainly to free the slaves. ALL blacks in the north were free (unless you think indentured servitude is slavery). Yes, they were still discriminated against, but they were free.

If you check out Iraq's actual military capabilities instead of just assuming since Bush says they've got ####, they pose a threat to the US... you'll dicover Iraq has NO aiforce. Iraq has NO navy. Iraq has NO long-range deploying capabilities. Saddam has NO intention of attacking the US. No... this isn't "overconfidense", it's logic. Remember, Saddam let the UN inspectors into Iraq, right?? The US didn't just shoot their way in... he bought himself quite some time, and with that time, he's been turning world oppinion against the US (ie: get the UN not to back the US in an Iraqi invasion).
However, if you want to get real technical and say "he's got weapons he could use, and tests on his own people". Well, I never said he didn't use chemical/biological weapons on his own people... because he does. Does that mean he'll use them on the US? Not really... He can push his own people around, but if he starts using them on US citizens, then he's really fliped because the US will attack. If he uses them against his neighboring countries, the US will attack. He knows this, and therefor, hasn't used them on other countries. And all because of why? He's trying to stay in power. However, since Bush is pressing his way into war, Saddam will be removed from power, right? And he knows he can't win, right? So what's to stop him from burning his oil feilds and using those weapons while he goes down? No reason to leave them for the US.
The reality of this war is, the US has Saddam cornered. He doesn't have any capability to launch his ####, but he's got plenty of it, and if the US keeps pushing on him, there's no telling who he'll set it lose on. Wouldn't the US look bad if he decided to send them over to the Palistine terrorist orgs. in Isreal... Some terrorist catchers the US would look like then...

Iraq most likely has hidden airfields around the country, and even if not, he most likely has underground silos and such. Plus, Iraq has allies: ppl that Saddam could supply his weapons to so THEY can attack US forces in other countries. If Saddam is so harmless, then why has he kicked the UN out of the country each time they have either stumbled onto or come close to finding or found evidence pointing towards him owning bio-chem weapons? Think about that.