I am anti-this-war because the President has no proof of Saddam having anything that breaks the treaty he made with the United Nations. I am not anti-war. I would gladly serve my country by joining the armed forces and entering into direct combat, but I want to do it the way I feel I will serve best, and that is in the Air Force. I'm not about to skip out on a draft, either. That's a vile, disgusting and selfish act. How could you even suggest that to anyone, even in a mocking tone? That's SERIOUS.
You're so extreme, everything is either one thing or another, and you try to force those stereotypes onto everyone and everything else when they're never correct. I never said you should join the navy, either. Try out those comprehension skills they taught you in third grade, they'll help you in future debates.
What a "pansy," hiding behind freedom of speech? You say something that no one likes and then bleet out "freedom of speech!" like that makes it alright, better, or even good? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It was created to ensure that the government does not restrict what is said and so that all views could be displayed without fear of prosecution for unpopular beliefs. Freedom of speech wasn't created to give assholes a license to further their ways. Why not try to back up your arguments instead of hiding behind empty "rights," "pansy."
And you obviously have some bigotted view against third world countries. Your comment that "most of the problems arrive from [them]," [sic] displays this attribute of yours perfectly. Is Germany a third world country, how about Russia? China? France? Britain? America? I'd have to say that less than 20% of all total conflicts have arisen from third world countries, and the intensity of those conflicts is less than 5%.
The majority of your arguments aren't even arguments. Their simply ad hominum, attacks against the person that's arguing instead of the argument itself. My world is more real than yours. Simply because I live in a higher social class doesn't mean I'm a(n) <insert_Ainvar's_elementary_school_retorts>. My concerns are also more real than yours. You're selfishly focused on one thing, that the world will be a better place without Saddam. You have no idea why. All you've heard is Bush's enthusiastic speeches that provide no proof and thus cannot be refuted. You don't think at all about what war means. You don't think at all about what war involves. You just think that after war the world will be a better place because Saddam won't be in it.
There will ALWAYS be a Saddam, just as your comment about utopia reveals (how am I not surprised that you don't understand what you yourself post?). Just because we go to war and completely decimate Iraq means that the world will be good again, when we don't even know that he has any weaponps? Who will replace Saddam? Saddam was a no name, once. We didn't know about him at all. Osama Bin Laden was a no name once. He support the United States in his days in college, even fighting in the Afghanistanian military alongside US troops. But now we know who he is. Why? Because he stepped up. You're telling me that because we destroy Saddam that someone else won't do what he did, what Osama did, what Hitler did?
You're naive. You don't live in the real world. When we unjustly go to war with Saddam that will only spur on other's hatred of the US, causing three Saddams to rise up against us. We reached the point of losing France and Germany as our allies, some of our longest and strongeste allies, because of this war that hasn't even begun! What will happen to the world opinion of the US when we do begin this war?
