First of all, you can stop with the "youngerster/youngin'/young man" crap. It doesn't matter what age any of us here are, only our knowledge of the subject at hand and maturity in the way we debate it.

Quote Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
By the way--there was a revolution against Saddam, shortly following the Persian Gulf war. By both the Kurds and the Shi'ites, I believe. It was brutally crushed, and hundreds of thousands were slaughtered.
That is completelly true. Bush had promessed them that he would help. Have you seen the movie "Three Kings" ? It's exactly about that issue.
Actually, "Three Kings" was about a few soldiers who wanted to steal the gold that the Iraqis had stolen from Kuwait during their invasion. It centered around that, and the uprisings in smaller villages, but not on the revolution on a grander scale. America did tell the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, but when they did--expecting American assistance--they were struck down and trampled, tortured, executed, and worse.

"Dear Saddam.
I would be really happy if you stopped using nerve gas and blistering agents on your own people. It would be really nice of you to stop letting women be raped by dozens of your soldiers while thier husbands look on, and to shut down the vats of acid and chipper-shredder machines that you put innocent civilians through. All of this would make me very happy. Just wanted you to know.
Love, America."
That, but without the rape point. Rape is still as frequent, must you know.

Leters like that is what Amnesty International usually send. Such a letter would wake other people upp. The lether should be sent publically, not written.
You're serious about this? Hell, I was being sarcastic, if you didn't notice. And by the way, random rapes may still be as frequent, but women no longer have to worry about being kidnapped and raped by entire squads of Iraqi Republican Guard soldiers. But letters like this haven't changed much of anything in the past, and they wouldn't change anything in this case--if you haven't noticed yet, violence is never a first resort.

What about if I want to keep the money I earned for myself?
You mean like, you dont want to give the poor people a chance to get cured in a normal hospita, and you wouldnt like other people to have a good time becouse they earn less, or becouse they want to give what they have to other people?
Well, then you're a narcasist, and should have nothing to say about society and big groups of people. Really.
What? You want to KEEP some of they money you earn? You're evil! You're selfish! You're narcisitic! What kind of world would we live in, if people actually had a motivation to work?!? If one man's greater work ethic put him above another man's laziness? Oh, the horror--oh, the humanity!

hat if I felt the only thing I owed another human being was that same right - that I'd never take from what another earned?
You're not taking what another person has earned, that cash goes to everyone, and not to you as a single induvidual. Free health for everyone is an issue that is worth more then that little cash you give away to that issue alone. As the entire state gives for it, it's all good.
No, you're not taking from what another person has earned--you're taking from what every person has earned. And if you do a more valuable job than every other person, you get no reward for it--leading people to forsake the more difficult, more educated, more important jobs to go for the easier, more common jobs.

All men are created equal. Their lives place them on the level they should be, and seperate the equality we have at birth.

Likewise, if I lived in a communist country (or even a socialistic one) and I was sick and had my health care paid for, free of charge, I'd hate to think what kind of hell I put a man through so he could pay off my bills.
Well, that's only if you didnt work for that before. You're not putting one man or woman trought this hell. All, or most of that cash goes to the state, what means that all that cash collected by the entire state gets mixed. Really, they'd all collect cash so that eveyrone could have a good time. Bills? what bills? they would all had been taken care of by the state. That man or woman in your example have no bills to pay herself or himself, so what difference does it make?
They'd "all collect cash to that eveyrone could have a good time"??? Yes, because we all know that everybody in Communist and Socialist countries just have the time of their lives every day, they couldn't be happier, right? :rolleyes2:

Yes, your bills would all be taken care of--by everybody else. And you'd be paying everybody else's bills. Income would be distributed equally, and the entire population would be completely equal in their poverty.

No, I don't think that physical violence is the ONLY answer, nor is it even the BEST answer... but I think that the citizens of Troy, or of Hiroshima, would disagree with anyone who says it's an ineffective solution.
Not all, might I ad. What difference would it make if the cityzen of Hiroshima attacked the US after that bomb? These people were allreddy dead, and the war was finished shortly after.
Troy? Might be, but that was many years ago, people have or should have learned allot since.
If I had a doughter and she was raped, raped again, killed, then raped, I would protest if the pedophile murderer was charged for death penality.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would make the world blind, young sir.
If Hiroshima hadn't been nuked, the war would have went on for months, possibly years, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more soldiers on both sides. By using (extreme) violence against the citizens of Japan, that was avoided. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it works.

If you had a daughter that was brutally raped and mudered, you would shame your family by placing more value on the life of the rapist/muderer than the life of your daughter, and I pray nobody like you ever breeds.

whereas a merely implied threat remains forever cloaked in the most terrifying thing humans have yet to encounter: the unknown.
Yes...
And that's why forcing the children with racist parents to collaborate with children of other nations is a great way to deal with racism.
According to your illogic, that would be forcing something upon those children, which would make it violence, and very very wrong.