speedy_samurai
I don't defend those type of people and their actions, obviously. Should I address them seperately? Ok
1)9/11 terrorists - Fly planes into financial buildings killing over 2000 people = bad. I am not defending attacks on innocents (many innocents have already been killed by coalition forces in the Iraq war. That too is bad)
2)Saddam - terrible man. I can't support anything he has done (unlike the american government who removed him from the list of terrorist nations in 1982, and then stuck with him even though he gassed Kurds, until he invaded Kuwait some years later.)
3)Palestinian terrorists - I can't/won't/don't support any kind of terrorism, nor do I have a history of doing so (unlike a certain government we have discussed before.)
I see, yet time and again you place the blame for the actions of these people on the US. Saddam was bad, but his people were
really hurt by sanctions right? Palestinian terrorists are bad, but only because the US so wrongly supports Israel. 9/11 terrorists were wrong, but only because they're too weak to attack the US any other way right? And Japan might have been wrong when they attacked us during WWII, but they didn't have much choice. And Iran may be wrong to try to get nuclear weapons, but it's really the US's fault for being powerful - it makes them feel the need to defend themselves.
The worst possible people on the planet are the one's you apologize for, and the nation spreads freedom and democracy to an oppressed nation, or that, almost alone in the world, stands for freedom - is the real evil nation.
It's more of the same trap that Brian falls into. The assumption that to be weak is to be noble, and to be strong is to be evil. I don't know why this is such an attractive assumption for you, but you need to get over it.
Don't confuse me with some kind of blind American-loving propaganda-fed idiot. I despise much of what is going on in America and much of what America does. I just happen to think you're off base. Most of my time on gtplanet is spent attacking the US.
What? You don't like the French?
Is that what I said? That because the guy was French I didn't like him? Did you read the article? Ruling out the use of force against a guy who refuses to play by your rules is
exactly the kind of impotency that prevents the UN from being useful .
Talk and action are two different things.
Holy crap. Could you have missed the point any more completely?
Take your time with that research. I want it to be thorough.