• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is the Greatest Tragedy this Nation has Endured?

What is the Greatest Tragedy this Nation has had to Endure?

  • Katrina

    Votes: 4 5.8%
  • 9/11

    Votes: 7 10.1%
  • JFK Assassination

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • RFK Assassination

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • MLK Assassination

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Pearl Harbor

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Cuban Missile Crisis

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Vietnam

    Votes: 8 11.6%
  • Great Depression

    Votes: 8 11.6%
  • Civil War

    Votes: 37 53.6%

  • Total voters
    69
Despite all your rhetoric crap about wmd's and other reasons why we went into iraq. And despite the seldom occasions of very few civilian deaths that occured compared to that of sadaams killings. Do you think it was a honorable and just thing that the US invaded Iraq to liberate them?

Hey Bill can you answer this question please?
 
Liberalism is the greatest tragedy we have experienced.
 
Despite all your rhetoric crap about wmd's and other reasons why we went into iraq. And despite the seldom occasions of very few civilian deaths that occured compared to that of sadaams killings. Do you think it was a honorable and just thing that the US invaded Iraq to liberate them?
Originally posted by SKILMATIC:
Hey Bill can you answer this question please?
We didn't go in to liberate anybody. To say we did is bullshit. We went in to annex their economy and tighten the noose around Iran (the real target).

In addition, although Sadaam did kill many, many people. I wouldn't say "few civilian deaths that occured" as an indication of the effects of our occupation of their country. With all the fire power the US has at its disposal (ie, cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions, etc), combined with reports we have used these weapons in urban areas, I doubt the deaths can be considered few by any means.

Finally, it is not honorable to break the law.
 
Billo_Really said:
We didn't go in to liberate anybody. To say we did is bullshit. We went in to annex their economy and tighten the noose around Iran (the real target).

In addition, although Sadaam did kill many, many people. I wouldn't say "few civilian deaths that occured" as an indication of the effects of our occupation of their country. With all the fire power the US has at its disposal (ie, cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions, etc), combined with reports we have used these weapons in urban areas, I doubt the deaths can be considered few by any means.

Finally, it is not honorable to break the law.

First off who's reports that we used cluster bombs in urban areas maybe AL-jazeera or the red crescent? LOL, I'll believe them . . . ya f'n right! Secondly I've argued the question of law before. International law and the idea of soviergnty is much kinder to tyrants than it is to democracy, consider this Saddam took power by force, retained power by force, what moral rights did he have to rule Iraq? None! So how is it not moral for an outside power to come in and remove him from power by force?
 
First off who's reports that we used cluster bombs in urban areas maybe AL-jazeera or the red crescent? LOL, I'll believe them . . . ya f'n right! Secondly I've argued the question of law before. International law and the idea of soviergnty is much kinder to tyrants than it is to democracy, consider this Saddam took power by force, retained power by force, what moral rights did he have to rule Iraq? None! So how is it not moral for an outside power to come in and remove him from power by force?

Din ding ding we have a winner. See now Bill if you would just stop using lies to answer a simple yes or no question you would sound alot more beleiveable.

To say such eratic things such as we only went in their to annex their economy is ludacrous. What the hell odes that even mean to annex ones economy? I thought annexing means adding? How did we add their economy(which is primarily oil) to our economy? Last time I checked I payed over 3bucks a gallon for regular unleaded. What say you Bill? You must love that line :lol:

Please omit any evidentiary support for that claim please sir.
 
And I am still waiting for your answer to that very question. Becasue your first one made no sense and the reasoning behind it was a lie. We dropped cluster bombs on civilians in iraq? :lol:

Now that I would love to see some support for that claim. :lol:
 
Great Depression would have to be the worst our country has had to endure. But luckily their was another "Napoleon" ruler, wanting to take over the world, and kill all of the Jews. Despite "popular belief" our country actually makes money going to war. Besides, who in America wants to be a "Chinese/Nazi", not me! :mrgreen:
 
Despite "popular belief" our country actually makes money going to war.

Which is why this war has nothing to do with our economy. Ding ding ding has the light turned on yet, Ban and Bill? I hope it has.
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
First off who's reports that we used cluster bombs in urban areas maybe AL-jazeera or the red crescent? LOL, I'll believe them . . . ya f'n right! Secondly I've argued the question of law before. International law and the idea of soviergnty is much kinder to tyrants than it is to democracy, consider this Saddam took power by force, retained power by force, what moral rights did he have to rule Iraq? None! So how is it not moral for an outside power to come in and remove him from power by force?
I'm not going to argue on what you think is moral or immoral. I will say that Article 51 of the UN Charter specifically gives only two reasons to attack a country with military force. And we had neither.
 
Originally posted by stsburns:
Great Depression would have to be the worst our country has had to endure. But luckily their was another "Napoleon" ruler, wanting to take over the world, and kill all of the Jews. Despite "popular belief" our country actually makes money going to war. Besides, who in America wants to be a "Chinese/Nazi", not me
You don't think we already are Chinese with all the money they have invested in this country to date.
 
Originally posted by SKILMATIC:
Which is why this war has nothing to do with our economy. Ding ding ding has the light turned on yet, Ban and Bill? I hope it has.
Did you move to planet earth?
 
Billo_Really said:
I'm not going to argue on what you think is moral or immoral. I will say that Article 51 of the UN Charter specifically gives only two reasons to attack a country with military force. And we had neither.

we are not the UN, and we don't let the UN dictate the way we run our country, if we did do as they do and do as they say can you imagine how messed up our country would be. hay maybe we could use the UN as an example and make Charles manson head of the human rights department of the government, that was sarcasm by the way.
 
I would vote the "granting of equal rights to the non-white races" but you don`t have that option on your poll.
 
Originally Posted by skabanger13:
we are not the UN, and we don't let the UN dictate the way we run our country, if we did do as they do and do as they say can you imagine how messed up our country would be. hay maybe we could use the UN as an example and make Charles manson head of the human rights department of the government, that was sarcasm by the way.
What do you mean we are not the UN? We are one of the five permanant members of the security council. Why belong to an organization and not obey the laws that you are a signatory too.
 
Originally Posted by SKILMATIC:
To say such eratic things such as we only went in their to annex their economy is ludacrous. What the hell odes that even mean to annex ones economy? I thought annexing means adding? How did we add their economy(which is primarily oil) to our economy? Last time I checked I payed over 3bucks a gallon for regular unleaded. What say you Bill? You must love that line
Here's your homework assignment.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081505M.shtml
 
Don't worry. Each nation is destined to endure different difficulties and tragedies. I believe in the conception that each nation deserves its own history.
I think that your greatest tragedy is 9/11 , because your strength, confidence and pride as a super power have been abused.
 
I think that your greatest tragedy is 9/11 , because your strength, confidence and pride as a super power have been abused

What the hell does that mean? Becasue we are strong and we have pride people deserve to die inhuumainly? So I guess then you deserved the decimation of hundreds of school children in your country? Typical communist.
 

Again billo war makes people rich how many times do I have to tell you. But we in no way shape or form are annexing their economy and to say such things is retarded. The day our gas prices fall to 50cents is when I will consider that idea. Get a clue
 
Originally Posted by SKILMATIC:
Again billo war makes people rich how many times do I have to tell you. But we in no way shape or form are annexing their economy and to say such things is retarded. The day our gas prices fall to 50cents is when I will consider that idea. Get a clue
Speak english!
 
Speak english!

In case you didnt know what the English language consists of, you see these letters together comprise words? Well those words together comprise sentences. And these sentences comprise facts. Which you have a hard time presenting.

But I cant expect you to unerstand this either after all you wouldnt know whats english if it hit you in the forehead. :2wave:
 
Which btw, I noticed you didnt rebuted which tells me you are running out of lame arguments I see. Liberalism will bite you in the a$$. I see someones tongue is already bitten. :lol:
 
Originally Posted by SKILMATIC:
In case you didnt know what the English language consists of, you see these letters together comprise words? Well those words together comprise sentences. And these sentences comprise facts. Which you have a hard time presenting.

But I cant expect you to unerstand this either after all you wouldnt know whats english if it hit you in the forehead
What is u-n-e-r-s-t-a-n-d?
 
Vietnam was the greatest tragedy our country has ever faced. Imagine being sent to fight a war that your country has no intentions of winning. 58,000 men died in that shithole -- why? That war destroyed the lives of many Americans -- including those who survived it. The emotional scars still have not healed. My father did two tours there as a US Marine -- really messed his head up after the second tour in 1970. McNamara shoud be tried and shot for treason -- the bastard has the nerve to promote a book on that damned war. I served during the Persian Gulf War. I Hope we are victoriously out of Iraq before the next election.:cry:
 
Last edited:
SKILMATIC said:
What the hell does that mean? Becasue we are strong and we have pride people deserve to die inhuumainly? So I guess then you deserved the decimation of hundreds of school children in your country? Typical communist.


I did not mean to be offensive. You did not understand me. I did not mean that "because you are strong you deserve to die unhumanly". The only think I want to do was to supply arguments for my choise. I do not want to argue with you but I think I don't deserve to attack me only because you didn't get my motives.
P.S. If you think I'm a communist, I'm not, I assure you.
If you think I'm Russian,I'm not.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom