Awright, now I'm throwing a couple cents on the grill.

1) You can't go around saying "Did America do this? Did America do that?" because I could play that game with you with any country with hundreds of events. "Did China have a day of morning for holocaust victims?" "Did China fly flags at half mast during the Columbine shootings?" "Did Germany have a day of prayer for (insert tragedy here)" This technique won't get anybody anywhere as far as a real argument goes because if you're trying to say a country only cares about itself, you have to cite examples of when they specifically backed off helping a country, and even then you have to prove that it was because it was they only care about themselves, not for some other good reason. "Prove to me my husband is a jerk! Why did he leave me all alone pregnant at 7 months?" Reply: "Maybe you shouldn't have slept with his brother..." All I'm saying is that trying to make an argument to "factly" state that someone is a jerk is IMPOSSIBLE and that you have to stick to more specific things. That incident about the Chinese pilot, for example, I think is a good one, if you're trying to conclude that America is somehow backhanded in Foreign Affairs...but even then you're going to have to prove to me that America also avoids helping other countries, which to be honest, I don't think you're gonna sell anybody on.
2) <<It could have easily been Russian or Japanese terriorist groups but everyone has a fixatatiion on the middle east.>> This is untrue. Neither Russian nor Japanese terrorist groups are this complex. They aren't as networked as Osama Bin Laden's, and could never have pulled something of this magnitude off. It could have been Russian or Japanese terrorists that bombed the WTC in 94; but they weren't. We don't just THROW blame somewhere away from us. We recently executed a former American Soldier who was in the higher than 1% in his field, making him very very specialized, because he bombed a building in Oklahoma.
3) We are NOT going to carpet bomb Afghanistan. Afghanistan is composed of rubble and poverty, thanks to a government that is at best described as "John Gotti's Day at Office". The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 1997, supported financially by the the selling of meth. Osama Bin Laden is reportedly a warlord who is very strong there, whom some say the Taliban WORK FOR. Afghanistan has no targets to bomb. It has been torn by a long war with Russia, and holds mostly widows and orphans (handicapped at that). You can't just start laying bombs over Kabul and cross your fingers. Believe me, the government knows that. Don't tell me one moment that we're so efficient at "killing people" in a military sense one minute, then the next minute insinuate that this is "Billy Bob Blows up His Elby-bone with a Potato Gun". We have some of the best military strategists in the world.

3) <<Millions of innocent people die every day due to senseless violence, starvation and hate, and how much of that is ignored? People say "oh it doesn't concern us so who gives a sh it" And how many innocent people have America killed in all the wars it purposely participated in even when it was none of its business. >> Let's look at this quote, because this bothered me a lot. First you say, America doesn't care when millions of innocent people die due to senseless violence because it doesn't concern us, YET you say right after that that we participate in wars that weren't any of our business...what if in that war millions of the innocent people you were talking about were dying senselessly? This is the type of anti-American drivel that ****es me off, because it's hypocritical...if you want to argue against our policies, argue about something with solid basis, like our media or its control on the population. Don't say "America doesn't participate and participates too much and not enough here and just a little over here." Again, I could just as easily go, "Where was Seychelle's financial aid for those starving in Sudan, DAMMIT? Where was Madasgar when I dropped my fork this morning?" I've heard excellent arguments that America chooses when to help, and that many countries hate this because when America pulls out, they are left defenseless. When America invaded Iraq, Bush told the people to rise up against Sadaam (the comparisons between Sadaam and that Taliban are tremendous; most of those Iraqi soldiers who died in Desert Storm did not want to fight...if you wanna blast America talk about how to save killing time they fixed snowplows on tanks and buried Iraqi soldiers alive in the trenches. But then I'll come right back with how many times such and such a country defied Geneva conventions, blah blah blah) but Bush called ceasefire between America and Iraq, so the people were left defenseless while Sadaam strategically starved them to death. These are good points to argue against America if you were so inclined. But don't give me this cliche "why aren't you here?" "why are you even over there when it's not your business" "who's on first, I don't know's on third" nonsense because I've heard it before and it's not a real argument.

4. <<have you people forgotten the ghosts of vietnam? maybe its about time you remembered them as sherriff bush once again prepares for war.>> This is another irk. "Have you forgotten the ghosts of WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, the Revolutionary War, Magellan vs. the Island of Mactan, the Seven Year's War? People died, so it's WRONG!" This is stupid. Terrorism is a crime against humanity. Terrorism targets civillians and usually when war is not declared. Terrorism creates chaos. If you don't stop terrorism, innocent people will continue dying. This is where, if you've learned from the previous notes on how to argue, you say, "What about those soldiers? Aren't they innocent, too? What about civillians who get killed in Afghanistan? Aren't they innocent?" To which I'd reply, "yes, they are, but as long as terrorism exists, it will go on ad infinitum. If people had to die as a control subject for an AIDS vaccine to save millions of people who would contract it and die otherwise, it would be damn worth it."

5. <<and for the allies of america, who are you willing to die for? the 8% of people who share 92% of the wealth?>> If you're trying to tell people that we are too rich to live, I don't think they're listening to you. The 8% of the people you talk about consists of probably less than 1,000 people (I'm talking like this could very well be 50 people). Bill Gates himself probably has decent percentage of the world's fortune. That's one guy. What I'm getting at is that to say America is composed of 250,000,000 Americans burning wads of cash to cook filet mignon with the blubber of endangered dolphinsis hard pressed. We have poverty, and what I think (not sure of number) is a 40% illiteracy rate. The 8% of the people you talk about is probably about 100 people which include Bill Gates, Big Tobbaco, and Oil Companies. To say our country doesn't need help because we have a couple rich individuals out of 250 million is ludicrous. If it were logical, we could send Bill Gates for citizenship of a country of our choosing and go, "See, that country has such and such a percent of the world's currency! They're not starving!" Get my drift?

Sorry this post is huge, but this is burning at me.

Ramon, who PR'd a few too many messages in this topic, and got PO'd at the BS, and decided to write a big, fat, FU.

Fellow yank.