Where are U?

[Fr0nTLiNe]

I swear im so happy starport players dont run the world u all sound like a bunch of winey GIRLS

so to make u all happy

FACT: The USA trained osma bin larden and sadam hussain

Result: You create Your own Problems

FACT: You said iraq had Nukes ..the U.N {Which usa is a perment member of} Sent weapons inspecters who where given full acess to everything who found nothing.
You invaded anyways and u didnt find nukes just some oil and sadam in a hole

Result: Easten world Hates your guts and 9/11 and other bombs in many places go off ....Usa acts like it was a unprevoked attack

Fact: most the countrys in the U.N voted agaisnt Invadeing Iraq

Result: Usa invades any ways

So all in all u created your own problems
All the lives of soliders that would be alive today if u mind your own bussness and stay the hug outa others country

Any one came to your country and started hugging with u
You would bomb them back as well

And a debate with amercians over this is like a debate with the Buger King Cleaners who have no idea whats going on the top of the ladder

So how about we all let the amercians live with the mess they made
And the rest of us can GET OVER IT

[Moleman]

/hug -nox-

[RiveraK2]

let me give you the list of countries that used the atomic bomb on militairy or civilian targets:

The United States of America



ye...that's pritty much it. They are the only ones with a count of 3. And just before you start "we used them fair and square" I think that throwing bombs at a city with no militairy value (if that is Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Leipzig or Vienna I can't be bothered) is evil.

You're misunderstanding me. The US used the TWO nuclear bombs,
not three. When we did use them, we were at war; and all is fair in war.
Listen, our enemies were trying to destroy us, so we had to protect
ourselves. I don't know where you're from, but I guarantee that if any
other country had the same technology at the time; they would have
also used it. If the bombs wouldn't have been used, the war would
have kept going on and only God knows how many more lives would
have been lost. Its your opinion if you think the use of those bombs
was evil, and I respect that opinion. Just know that the United States
was defending it's freedom from being destroyed by it's enemies.

Why? If they have one atomic bomb, they can throw it. But than they are done and the world won't be out of a reason to sending the Irani people to oblivion. Really, from Iran's point of few, the only thing they can use a nuke for is defense from attacks. Bush goverment attacked Iraq just on the assumption that they had biologic and/or chemical bombs, showing to Iran that if the USA wants to atttack, they'll do it anyway.

You're really out of touch with reality.. Iran HAS not only
made threats against the US, but they have also stated that they want
to wipe Israel off the map! The point is that a country stating such things
should NOT be allowed to have the most dangerous type of weapon
on Earth, because.... hmm.. maybe they might actually go through with
those threats if they had this thing. Its common sense, my friend.

You can't compare the US having nukes to Iran wanting nukes either.
The US doesn't go around saying "We want to wipe so and so off the
face of the Earth." Iran has done so and thats the main proponent
as to why Iran should not be allowed to have such a weapon.

Furthermore, the USA's reason for invading Iraq wasn't an assumption
at the time. Like I said in my previous post, Saddam lied about having
such weapons to scare off Iran from a possible invasion. This "lie"
then made its way to US intelligence. Couple that with Saddam's numerous
threats against the US, and you've got a USA that felt threatened.
You can look all this up if you wish; I don't BS.

Pardon me? The Vietnam War did get started by the USA. Just like the pigbay incident, which was pathetic but still an act of war.

Sorry, absolutely incorrect. Check your history.
North Vietnam initiated the war around 1955, after they
defeated France. North Vietnam wanted to unify with South Vietnam
under a Communist regime, but the South wanted Democracy.
The USA only supported South Vietnam financially until 1965 when
the USA officially entered the war to help the South because it was losing.

So you see, the Vietnam war started around 1955 BY THE NORTH, and
the USA didn't get militarily involved until 1965-66. the USA did support
the south before 1965, but IT NEVER INITIATED THE WAR. Nice try to
paint America as the bad guy though... But not good enough.

So when the UN inspectors where in Iraq and Saddam Hussein publicly said that he didn't have any bombs and the inspectors semi-proved that he indeed didn't have any bombs. A talk between Saddam Hussein and some of his militairy people was good enough? How thick can you get? For some reason I think that if a country has bombs the leader of the country doesn't need to tell the army they have the bombs. "Oh so that's the unknown objects we are keeping, ahh thanks for telling"

First of all, he didn't tell the entire army like you think. He told his
"inner-military circle". I even said that in my last post. Secondly, you
have to take it seriously if the freaking leader of a country is telling
his Generals that he has weapons of mass destruction; at the time
it wasn't known if he was telling the truth or not. He was the leader!
If an Iraqi civilian at the time would have said "Hey we have WoMD!",
no one would have listened. But when you have the LEADER OF A
COUNTRY saying those things; its 100% different; so yeah him
telling his Generals was good enough, because its the LEADER saying
it.

Iraqis have all the freedoms in the world? So for example if an Iraqi would want to take a walk late at night he would be let to? I'm gonna give this one a simple: no.

Dude, please just stop. They do have freedom, MUCH more than they
had while Saddam/Taliban was in power. I saw this special on TV and
about what life was like when Saddam/Taliban were running things.
Women HAD to be covered at all times, and if they didn't they'd be
killed/arrested. And men HAD to have a beard or else they'd be
arrested/killed. They were so supressed, but not anymore thanks to
the USA.

I'll respond to the other half of your post later on.. Thanks for the debate!

[DarkLStrike]

I won't bother to read the arguments above.

Canada.

[Gloin]

North Bay Ontario

[petertje]

sry for double post

[petertje]

You're misunderstanding me. The US used the TWO nuclear bombs,
not three. When we did use them, we were at war; and all is fair in war.

USA used three atomic bombs , two against Japan, one against it's own army to test how soldiers would react when an atomic bomb exploded nearby. It wasn't a very smart thing to do.

Not all is fair in war, what you think the USA signed Genève for?

Listen, our enemies were trying to destroy us, so we had to protect
ourselves. I don't know where you're from, but I guarantee that if any
other country had the same technology at the time; they would have
also used it. If the bombs wouldn't have been used, the war would
have kept going on and only God knows how many more lives would
have been lost. Its your opinion if you think the use of those bombs
was evil, and I respect that opinion. Just know that the United States
was defending it's freedom from being destroyed by it's enemies.
.

Again, USA only used them to quicken the end of the war. Japan had already surrender but USA wanted Japan to surrender unconditianally (sorry if I didn't get that word right). I am from The Netherlands, all the information Iran has about making nucleair bombs comes from The Netherlands (A certain mr. Khan worked in dutch nucleair plants and left with all the information he could get. Funny enough he now lives in the USA and the USA won't give him over to dutch authorities.)

You're really out of touch with reality.. Iran HAS not only
made threats against the US, but they have also stated that they want
to wipe Israel off the map! The point is that a country stating such things
should NOT be allowed to have the most dangerous type of weapon
on Earth, because.... hmm.. maybe they might actually go through with
those threats if they had this thing. Its common sense, my friend.

You can't compare the US having nukes to Iran wanting nukes either.
The US doesn't go around saying "We want to wipe so and so off the
face of the Earth." Iran has done so and thats the main proponent
as to why Iran should not be allowed to have such a weapon.

Israël has done exactly the same, they got atomic bomb(s). Also Hillary Clinton (presidential candidate) said that if Iran attacked Israël Iran would be send to oblivion.

Sorry, absolutely incorrect. Check your history.
North Vietnam initiated the war around 1955, after they
defeated France. North Vietnam wanted to unify with South Vietnam
under a Communist regime, but the South wanted Democracy.
The USA only supported South Vietnam financially until 1965 when
the USA officially entered the war to help the South because it was losing.

So you see, the Vietnam war started around 1955 BY THE NORTH, and
the USA didn't get militarily involved until 1965-66. the USA did support
the south before 1965, but IT NEVER INITIATED THE WAR. Nice try to
paint America as the bad guy though... But not good enough.

The USA promised fair democratic elections to the South Vietnamese. However, when the polls showed that the south was gonna vote for the communist (Min) party the USA faked an incident where it was attacked by the north vietnamese and they denied a democratic election for the south vietnamese.

But I will check it with my history book, when I can find the damn thing.

First of all, he didn't tell the entire army like you think. He told his
"inner-military circle". I even said that in my last post. Secondly, you
have to take it seriously if the freaking leader of a country is telling
his Generals that he has weapons of mass destruction; at the time
it wasn't known if he was telling the truth or not. He was the leader!
If an Iraqi civilian at the time would have said "Hey we have WoMD!",
no one would have listened. But when you have the LEADER OF A
COUNTRY saying those things; its 100% different; so yeah him
telling his Generals was good enough, because its the LEADER saying
it.

Just a question: Would Eisenhower ("Inner circle of the USA army") have known the USA got atomic bombs? I think he would. (This is not entirely fair because the president of the USA had less powers than Saddam Hoessein but still it is impossible to think that the high staff of the Iraqi army, which is mostly the type of organisation that protects big bombs or indeed any bombs, did not known about these bombs until Saddam told them about them)

Dude, please just stop. They do have freedom, MUCH more than they
had while Saddam/Taliban was in power. I saw this special on TV and
about what life was like when Saddam/Taliban were running things.
Women HAD to be covered at all times, and if they didn't they'd be
killed/arrested. And men HAD to have a beard or else they'd be
arrested/killed. They were so supressed, but not anymore thanks to
the USA.

This is absolutely true for Afghanistan.For Iraq it is less true because Saddam Hoessein was never a religious leader (even though he did attempt to on some level). However you should ask yourself what the country would turn to become when democracy is properly in place? The image of the USA in the mirror but then just a little bit hotter or lead by a sji'iet religious fanatic leader considering the majority of Iraqi population is sji'iet. There is no garantee that the position of women, which, let's face it, is currently forced upon the Iraqi's by the USA, will last. I truely hope so but I also truely doubt it. Either way the Iraqi's are currently not having 'all the freedoms in the world'.

[duece]

For Vietnam look into the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The United States lied completely claiming that North Vietnamese forces attacked US ships to gain enough support in congress to go to war. The only reason America entered the war was because it looked like the Vietnamese people were leaning towards communism, and the communist forces were more popular and stronger.

For Iraq, women's right were far greater under Saddam than they ever will be under a democratic Iraq, and the new government will most likely be just as suppressive as Saddam was. Al Qaeda had no base in Iraq because Saddam hated them, and they'll never be able to use Iraq as a base to "reload" because the Shi'ite majority (60% of the population) hates them. The only reason they survive there now is the people hate America so much they're willing to support anyone who fights it, and Al Qaeda is perceived as the most effective against America. As soon as America pulls out they'll be massacred.

For Iran, keep in mind the president was elected democratically and all foreign observers have testified the Iranian elections have been mostly fair, and if he doesn't get reelected he doesn't have the power to stay in power anyway. Granted, they aren't a complete democracy, but that just means Ahmadenijad's opinion means even less. There is a strong reformist movement in Iran who seek a more peaceful open approach with their nuclear program, but that's Iranian politics. Iran hasn't invaded another country for over 200 years. And I'm almost certain that certain elements in their politics do want nukes as a means of self-defense.

Peterje hit the nail on the head, every major intelligence investigation outside of the US, including UN weapons inspectors, said Saddam had given up his weapons programs. And I don't buy at all that it was just a mistake that the US claimed he did, even Colin Powell, after he resigned, admitted they had almost no evidence even while they were claiming they did. So now it's understandable that Iranians believe that America might pick a fight and no matter what they do they won't be able to avoid it (keep in mind Saddam cooperated 100% with the weapons inspectors and it got him nowhere).

As for Ahmedinijad's comments about Israel, he was not making a threat, the comment as it has been aired on American media has been mistranslated. He was quoting the first Ayatollah of Iran saying "this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] from the page of time." Not exactly the friendliest comment, but not a threat. He was calling for a regime change in Israel, and Iran has taken no steps at all to pursue it. He was just giving a speech. And Bush threatened Iran first with his "new axis of evil" speech.

And I also want to point out that Israel has had a secret nuclear weapons programs from at least 1975, probably 1960, according to declassified US intelligence reports, and Mordechai Vanunu (who worked on an Israeli nuclear site then fled to London and leaked evidence of it to the press.) They have an unknown amount of nuclear bombs, and a very advanced American funded air force. Iran would be stupid or crazy to try something, and they are neither stupid or crazy (despite what American media likes to portray). In the time a plane or missile got halfway from Iran to Israel, the Israelis would be able to launched a massive counter attack that could wipe Iran out completely. And that's if they were willing to, which I seriously doubt, keep in mind Israel's capital Jerusalem is also considered holy by Muslims, so attacking it with a nuclear weapon would anger the Muslim World as much as anything else. And before you say it, I'm not out of touch with reality... you are.

[awmalzo]

look what I have started

I am from Malta

Its all quite and peaceful here so happy

[Monkey]

USA went to war with vietnam because they were about to fall to communism, which the USA dosent want to have communist governments..and if Vietnam fell to communists the rest of the countrys around there would most likly would...thats pretty much why we went to war then it was evident that we couldent win..which the whole vietnam war was a disaster ..

[Caia]

Upstate New York. Home of... uhhh... Kodak, Xerox and other companies that will all go bankrupt in the next decade. (Send money.)

[DionysuZ]

First of all, I'm from the Netherlands

Next:
RikerAK2, Ahmedinejad NEVER said he wanted to wipe israel off the map. The correct translation of what he said was: The Imam said that this regime, occupying Israel, much vanish from the page of time. Thus all he did was refer to a quote from 'the imam' Ayatolla Khomeini. (a source)

As for Iran and Nuclear weapons, According to the AIEA Iran does not posses any nuclear weapons or even the nuclear materials needed (More than 80% ur-235, Iran currently is around 8% enrichment, good enough for nuclear power, which Iran claims to be the only thing they want to use it for). Iran has worked in full compliance with the international inspectors (A source). So at current times, there is no reason to suspect Iran wants to develop a nuke. But of course, information can change.

Iran hasn't started a war in over 300 years. The U.S. has
Iran has never used nuclear weapons. The U.S. has, on civilians even.

Don't believe all the mass propaganda you read in the papers and see on TV. The U.S. has been planning war with Iran, as well as Iraq and Afhanistan, for some time.

[DionysuZ]

@ robotchicken.

heh. Well, there goes the need for my post

[DionysuZ]

2)We've brought freedom to the Iraqi people, especially women.
Its just a true shame that the Iraqis couldn't achieve democracy
on their own; they should have fought fiercely against the Taliban.[/b]

wth does the taliban have to do with the war in Iraq? They didnt even rule in Iraq.

[Smeagol...]

2)We've brought freedom to the Iraqi people, especially women.
Its just a true shame that the Iraqis couldn't achieve democracy
on their own; they should have fought fiercely against the Taliban.[/b]

wth does the taliban have to do with the war in Iraq? They didnt even rule in Iraq.

Why do you guys continue to pay any attention to Rivera? My 11 year old sister could tell you more about the Taliban then him...at least she knows their in Afghanistan not Iraq....

[Epikhigh]

america

[Mr.Boombastic]

United States.

Earlier it was mentioned about how peaceful Japan is. Notice that Japan has the most deviant porn there is? Correlation? You be the judge.

[Manganator]

They get pron for sickos and crime goes down?

[Stklr]

This is response to nuke thing:
There was a major Japanese miliary base in the city.

And the president had many sleepless nights deciding on whether or not to drop the bomb.

Everyone just wanted a quick end to the war instead of invading Japan.

Ive argued this matter with many supposed "experts" and im trying to keep it in simple terms (no offence) in order for you to fully understand.

If I get more resistance then i shall post enough to silence even the most hard headed.

[Mondaydark]

Man This Topic should be changed to World Problems. I belive the best place to live is the Ocean. sept for the Storms. Ya wouldn't have to deal with the politics of the world. so lets all move to the ocean and be happy. And have a party on my Island.

[DionysuZ]

2)We've brought freedom to the Iraqi people, especially women.
Its just a true shame that the Iraqis couldn't achieve democracy
on their own; they should have fought fiercely against the Taliban.[/b]

wth does the taliban have to do with the war in Iraq? They didnt even rule in Iraq.

Why do you guys continue to pay any attention to Rivera? My 11 year old sister could tell you more about the Taliban then him...at least she knows their in Afghanistan not Iraq....

I know. that's why I asked.

[DionysuZ]

This is response to nuke thing:
There was a major Japanese miliary base in the city.

And the president had many sleepless nights deciding on whether or not to drop the bomb.

Everyone just wanted a quick end to the war instead of invading Japan.

Ive argued this matter with many supposed "experts" and im trying to keep it in simple terms (no offence) in order for you to fully understand.

If I get more resistance then i shall post enough to silence even the most hard headed.

The bombing of Hiroshima destroyed mostly residential areas. The city CENTER was bombed, with a population of 350,000. Only 4 of the 30 targets were military targets. So please don't try to justify the bombing of Hiroshima by saying it harbored a major military base.

It's also a fabel that the bombing of these cities was the only quick way to end this war. The Japanese were looking for peace when they returned from the Potsdam Conference on aug. 3 1945, 3 days before the bombing of Hiroshima. Even before that Japan was looking for ways to end the war by negotiation.

[JD]

USA here

[fallenvictory]

let me give you the list of countries that used the atomic bomb on militairy or civilian targets:

The United States of America



ye...that's pritty much it. They are the only ones with a count of 3. And just before you start "we used them fair and square" I think that throwing bombs at a city with no militairy value (if that is Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Leipzig or Vienna I can't be bothered) is evil.

You're misunderstanding me. The US used the TWO nuclear bombs,
not three. When we did use them, we were at war; and all is fair in war.
Listen, our enemies were trying to destroy us, so we had to protect
ourselves. I don't know where you're from, but I guarantee that if any
other country had the same technology at the time; they would have
also used it. If the bombs wouldn't have been used, the war would
have kept going on and only God knows how many more lives would
have been lost. Its your opinion if you think the use of those bombs
was evil, and I respect that opinion. Just know that the United States
was defending it's freedom from being destroyed by it's enemies.

Why? If they have one atomic bomb, they can throw it. But than they are done and the world won't be out of a reason to sending the Irani people to oblivion. Really, from Iran's point of few, the only thing they can use a nuke for is defense from attacks. Bush goverment attacked Iraq just on the assumption that they had biologic and/or chemical bombs, showing to Iran that if the USA wants to atttack, they'll do it anyway.

You're really out of touch with reality.. Iran HAS not only
made threats against the US, but they have also stated that they want
to wipe Israel off the map! The point is that a country stating such things
should NOT be allowed to have the most dangerous type of weapon
on Earth, because.... hmm.. maybe they might actually go through with
those threats if they had this thing. Its common sense, my friend.

You can't compare the US having nukes to Iran wanting nukes either.
The US doesn't go around saying "We want to wipe so and so off the
face of the Earth." Iran has done so and thats the main proponent
as to why Iran should not be allowed to have such a weapon.

Furthermore, the USA's reason for invading Iraq wasn't an assumption
at the time. Like I said in my previous post, Saddam lied about having
such weapons to scare off Iran from a possible invasion. This "lie"
then made its way to US intelligence. Couple that with Saddam's numerous
threats against the US, and you've got a USA that felt threatened.
You can look all this up if you wish; I don't BS.

Pardon me? The Vietnam War did get started by the USA. Just like the pigbay incident, which was pathetic but still an act of war.

Sorry, absolutely incorrect. Check your history.
North Vietnam initiated the war around 1955, after they
defeated France. North Vietnam wanted to unify with South Vietnam
under a Communist regime, but the South wanted Democracy.
The USA only supported South Vietnam financially until 1965 when
the USA officially entered the war to help the South because it was losing.

So you see, the Vietnam war started around 1955 BY THE NORTH, and
the USA didn't get militarily involved until 1965-66. the USA did support
the south before 1965, but IT NEVER INITIATED THE WAR. Nice try to
paint America as the bad guy though... But not good enough.

So when the UN inspectors where in Iraq and Saddam Hussein publicly said that he didn't have any bombs and the inspectors semi-proved that he indeed didn't have any bombs. A talk between Saddam Hussein and some of his militairy people was good enough? How thick can you get? For some reason I think that if a country has bombs the leader of the country doesn't need to tell the army they have the bombs. "Oh so that's the unknown objects we are keeping, ahh thanks for telling"

First of all, he didn't tell the entire army like you think. He told his
"inner-military circle". I even said that in my last post. Secondly, you
have to take it seriously if the freaking leader of a country is telling
his Generals that he has weapons of mass destruction; at the time
it wasn't known if he was telling the truth or not. He was the leader!
If an Iraqi civilian at the time would have said "Hey we have WoMD!",
no one would have listened. But when you have the LEADER OF A
COUNTRY saying those things; its 100% different; so yeah him
telling his Generals was good enough, because its the LEADER saying
it.

Iraqis have all the freedoms in the world? So for example if an Iraqi would want to take a walk late at night he would be let to? I'm gonna give this one a simple: no.

Dude, please just stop. They do have freedom, MUCH more than they
had while Saddam/Taliban was in power. I saw this special on TV and
about what life was like when Saddam/Taliban were running things.
Women HAD to be covered at all times, and if they didn't they'd be
killed/arrested. And men HAD to have a beard or else they'd be
arrested/killed. They were so supressed, but not anymore thanks to
the USA.

I'll respond to the other half of your post later on.. Thanks for the debate!

i didn't read a single word of this and yet i strongly disagree.

[Stklr]

Japenese villages all jumped off cliffs and committed suicide rather then be hald by Americans.

We had to nuke them TWICE before they surrendered.

They had days were the WHOLE NATION did bomb drills, they were trained for the army at 3 years.

If we had taken Japan there would be mass suicide, and I assure you they would have fought to the last child.

They didnt mess around.

They took there war seriously.

Its scary what they did.

Japenese soldieres taken prisinor would kill themselves in the hospitals.

How can you fight people like that?
Have your men go to that?
it saved a lot more american lives.

In war, its your people that matter.

[Mondaydark]

In war, its your people that matter.

Guess not to the Japanesse. or the Afgans or china or russia. To them its not that people that matter its the Winning is what matters in war. If ya lose ya die if your gonna die Take some enemys out with ya.

in the good words of Iron Maiden - If ya gonna die die with your boots on.

[DionysuZ]

How can you fight people like that?
Have your men go to that?
it saved a lot more american lives.

In war, its your people that matter.

Like I said. Japan had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to end the war. And a few days before the bombing they were actively seeking peace.

[RiveraK2]

The Japanese were looking for peace when they returned from the
Potsdam Conference on aug. 3 1945, 3 days before the bombing of
Hiroshima. Even before that Japan was looking for ways to end the
war by negotiation.

They had their chance for peace but REFUSED the terms of the Potsdam
Declaration. Furthermore, the declaration clearly stated that if Japan
did not surrender; then they would face "prompt and utter destruction".

The terms of the declaration were not that harsh either. The terms that
Japan had to agree to in order to END THE WAR were (and I paraphrase):

1)Eliminate from power the people (high officials I believe) which misled
their people into embarking on world conquest.

2)Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu,
Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (the Allies)
determine.

3)The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall
be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead
peaceful and productive lives.

4)The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival
and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people.
Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the
fundamental human rights shall be established.

5)Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will
sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind,
but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end,
access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be
permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be
permitted.

In my opinion the ultimate goal of the terms aforementioned were to
keep Japan from rebuilding their military and starting another war,
while bringing "stern justice" as mentioned within the declaration.

Truly, agreeing to these terms would have been a small price to pay
for starting a war. (They didn't start WW2, but they did start a war
with the US.) Furthermore, if they truly did want peace at the time,
and cared about their people; they would have agreed to the
Declaration of Potsdam. They passed on their opportunity for peace
and paid the price which once again was CLEARLY STATED:

"PROMPT AND UTTER DESTRUCTION"

[RiveraK2]

USA used three atomic bombs , two against Japan, one against it's own army to test how soldiers would react when an atomic bomb exploded nearby. It wasn't a very smart thing to do.

Thats absolutely ridiculous. If you can find proof in the form of an
article from a LEGIT site, not one of those anti American sites, that
the United States used an atomic bomb on its own soldiers, then I'll
believe you.

No disrespect, but I live in the United States; so I think I know a little
more about U.S. history than you, (someone living in the Netherlands).

Israël has done exactly the same, they got atomic bomb(s). Also Hillary Clinton (presidential candidate) said that if Iran attacked Israël Iran would be send to oblivion.

Yeah but, once again I'll go back to my original argument:

You don't hear Israeli leaders saying they want to wipe Iran off the map,
like Iran's president said.

I've also read that some people believe that Iran's president was mis-
interpreted while others believe he was not. My opinion is that they're
trying to censor Iran's president so that he won't seem like he's the
bad guy, when in reality he would love nothing more than to destroy
Israel. After all, he did make the statement at the "World Without
Zionism" conference.

The USA promised fair democratic elections to the South Vietnamese. However, when the polls showed that the south was gonna vote for the communist (Min) party the USA faked an incident where it was attacked by the north vietnamese and they denied a democratic election for the south vietnamese.

I disagree, North Vietnam was on the cusp of winning the war.
The US president at the time felt that a dominoe effect would begin
if communism won out in Vietnam. So, to prevent the rise of
communism, the US got involved.

Thats not the point to this argument though. The point is that the
US NEVER initiated that war. The US supported South Vietnam
financially however; it DID NOT get involved militarily until
1965-66; about 10 YEARS after the war began back in 1955.

I apologize for not responding to your remaining arguments; but I'm
all debated out lol.. I'll respond to them in the future though..

[Kasatka]

Canada