most of America are christians, and America was brought up on Jadeo Christian values, and it's a sin or whatever in the Christian religion to be a homosexual. Well, that's why they judge gays like they do in MY mind, atleast. [/b][/quote] That's exactly why I'm Atheist.
That's exactly why I'm Atheist. [/b][/quote] I'm a Satanist. In my 15 years, I've learned that it's better to believe that one makes their own life path, and it's not all set in stone what you'll do in life, and to believe that you are your own god. well, it made sense when it popped in my head.
Well, I understand that America was brought up in Christian eyes, but still, I thought religion wasn't supposed to come into government? Isn't passing laws government-like? I'm not good with politics, but I don't think people would/should be restricted just because they're one way... I guess I just must have missed something .
despite what the laws say, religion will always influence someone's decisions. They don't have to admit it, but in the back of the congress mans mind, he's thinking about what HE thinks is right, and what he thinks is right was made by his religion. In Conclusion: Religion influences the morals and ethics that we all use through-out our lives. Even in government.
Exactly. America, from the day it was born, made the committment of being the police for the world. That's what America was founded on. [/b][/quote] Theres someting called the UN . They should take care of the world.
I'd say yes, but you see that wouldn't happen because the UN doesn't believe in killing thousands of innocent people for just one person.
The UN is an organization of many countries which aim to maintain world peace. That is their job. They are the babysitters of the world, not specifically the US. And I'm sure the UN would've went based on real facts and proof rather than rushing into a war.
The UN is an organization of many countries which aim to maintain world peace. That is their job. They are the babysitters of the world, not specifically the US. [/b][/quote] But that still wouldn't make much sense if you think about it. So instead of one country being pissed that one country invaded them and killed thousands of people, they'd be pissed at more than one country.
But that still wouldn't make much sense if you think about it. So instead of one country being pissed that one country invaded them and killed thousands of people, they'd be pissed at more than one country. [/b][/quote] Yeah, but they wouldn't know who to be mad at first. And they can't attack everyone at once. . Besides, they're more likely to co-operate (although virtually impossible with Iraq and Saddam) with the UN rather than the US. Why make yourself a target (US, UK) when you can make a big team, invade a country, and make yourself less of a target? Heh.
If that would happen, it would be a democratic decision which means that the maturity wanted to go to war which is fair. But when there are millions of people protesting in the streets against Bush going to war, you can see its wrong to go to war. [EDIT] Saddam had a meeting with some reporter from CBC before the war and said that he's willing to have a meeting with Bush and the UN to discuss whats going on but the white house rejected the offer because they thought he was being sarcastic (what a bullshit reason). If you want to see the interview, just ask and I'll put up the link.
But the UN gave the US permission to go into Iraq. Whether or not they gave the US permission to destroy people's lives is still to be figured out. I don't keep up on political situations or things like that. Politics are for suckers.
Nope, The UN didn't allow Bush to go to war but he decided to invade Iraq anyway. I'll try to find a source to prove myself.
Nope, The UN didn't allow Bush to go to war but he decided to invade Iraq anyway. I'll try to find a source to prove myself. [/b][/quote] it was on the National News, I don't think you have to do that.
That's why I hate the news. One day they say one thing, and the next day they say something else. That's why I'm bad in debates like these. Anyway, I'm going to stop debating, just because I'm making myself look like a fool and I have no idea what I'm talking about half the time.
Alot of people dislike Bush, but I think the fact that you're defending Hussein to show your dislike for Bush is sad.
The U.N. can't approve or not, but the security council yes. 8 countries have their right to veto, and Russia, France, Germany threatened to veto. That's why war in Iraq isn't U.N. backed.
Alot of people dislike Bush, but I think the fact that you're defending Hussein to show your dislike for Bush is sad. [/b][/quote] you know he's from Iraq right? (sorry if you're not Omar, I was under the impression that you are)
I am from Iraq, but I've lived all my life in Canada. And superxero81, I'm not defending Saddam. I'm just saying that Saddam wanted to negotiate, than why go to war? He would've probably stepped down from being a president, who knows.