Search my previous posts until you find an off-topic thread labelled something along the lines of "Starcrafts tour of South East Asia."  Complete with pics, dates and information.

I can wait a while so that you have time to get to the hospital to have your foot surgically removed from your mouth.

As for your bolded comments, you're wrong.  As I just said, the vast majority of Cambodians believe Pol Pot was a heinous human being.  Given how quick people the world over are to attack America, I find it interesting that not one person I met there so much as alluded to any of the ideas you're spouting.

The Nazis invaded other countries and wanted to conquer all of Europe. North Korea can hardly achieve such a feat.

Whatever human rights violations are going on there, they're going on internally, which means it's the business of North Koreans. If they don't like how things are in their country they should rise up and get rid of the stupid dictator they have. That's what happened here in Romania. No foreign nation invaded us to rid us of communism and that tyrannical dictator.

And Hitler and the Nazis' rise to power could have been prevented if the allies didn't decide to rape Germany post WWI with the Verssailles Treaty.

shotgun foot, fixed

Learn to read: War created those events. I did not say anything about slavery.

Actually link the so-called evidence otherwise no one will take you seriously. This is YOUR evidence you're presenting for YOUR argument. No one's gonna do your work for you.

Um I heard otherwise in the US military, special forces this may be the case, infantryman may be slighty different. Obviously I dont know enough about it but assuming if draft came only a shotgun to the foot would save you

Actually, you're the only one doubting me by the look of it.

The argument most people are making against you is that someone told you horrendous lies about the American Military and you believed them, without listening to anyone spouting the truth.  Their argument is essentially that you make no effort to seek out other sources, and deny those that are presented to you.

So by all means, fish through my post history if you wish to prove them wrong, and engage my arguments.  But if not, that's fine with me, people will have their view of you (rightly in my opinion) reinforced.

The most important goal of any reasonable and informed person in a thread like this, is to ensure that the views of extremist people such as yourself, and the uninformed opinions they represent, are firmly discredited.

Good grief, you don't understand anything.

There is no 'good' guy in war. There is only murder.

You want to assume I'm ignorant? Fine. Don't care. It just means I won't take you seriously.

Here's something you probably never thought of; my focal reason for believing war is evil.

WW1: The war to defend Democracy and to end all wars - argued by President Wilson.

Result: It ended-up giving rise to Fascist dictatorships in Italy, in Portugal, and of course, Germany.

WW2: The war to preserve Democracy from Tyranny

Result: a 50 year Cold War with the USSR.

End of the Cold War: Believed to end all world strife and make it all boring.

Result: Ethnic Cleansing (a.k.a. Genocide) in Rwanda, Kosovo, Cambodia, Abkhazia, and other areas.

Do you really expect anyone to believe war is a good thing considering all that crap?

Yes, genocide is horrible but most people neglect the fact that rising ethnic tensions are unavoidable and unpreventable. Getting involved in another melting pot will lead to WW3.

@voty2000:

I wanna start by commenting on an earlier post of yours.

There is honor in death.  You take a bullet for your wife, you die with honor.  The men who died in WW I and WW II died with honor because without their death, Nazi forces will have taken over the world.  I can see your point about the Iraq War but those people chose to fight and whether you agree with the war or not, they died with honor, doing what they thought was right.

WTF??? Nazis in WWI? Seriously? There were no Nazis back then.

And no, the men who died in WWI did not die with honor. It was a pointless war. Political leaders playing games on the expense of the idiots who they governed. There were no "good guys" and "bad guys" in that war. EVERYONE was a "bad guy" then. But when it was all over the winners (allies) decided to take the frustration caused by their own stupidity by blaming it all on the losers (the Central powers, most fo all Germany), and with things like the Versailles Treaty created the climate in Germany that helped Hitler and the Nazis come to power.

Essentially WWII took place thanks to WWI.

No matter how cliche it is to say this, you wouldn't be here if it weren't for people fighting before you were ever born. 

That sounds like something from a movie. You're giving them too much credit. I also wouldn't be here if it weren't for extramarrital relationships.

And about women.  I'm a misogynist?  Did I say women couldn't fight?  Did I say women are inferior to men?  NO, I said that men should protect women when we can.

Why should women have to be protected by men? If they're not inferior to men and they can fight, then that means they can protect themselves.

I respect women and do what I can for them.  That's what men do.  Do I hold the door open for a woman because she can't?  Nope, I do it because she doesn't have to.

What kind of misogynistic drivel is this? And "that's what men do"? The woman doesn't have to open the door, but a guy has to open it for her? WTF? Dude, that's just a cultural construct.

@PDF:

This is more a argument of isolationism vs interventionism.   Which is more an argument of ethics.   Do you not think the strong should stick up for the weak when they are being abused?

I do, but in some situations it is better to not intervene. This is one of thos situations. I'm against the ideea of nation A invading nation B and changing the government etc., because nation A doesn't think things in nation B are going OK. This is always because in all cases nation A is simply following it's own interest, not the interest of nation B (like the US supporting all kinds of regimes that in no way help the people in those countries). It's the responsability of the citizens of nation B to make sure thigs go OK over there, and if they feel abused they should do something about it and they can do something about it if they stop being scared).

Should we allow grown men to abuse their families, just because it takes place within their home?

A bad example. Those grown men are citizens of a particular country, and they need to obey the laws of said country. Just because the home is supposed to theoretically be a private space, it is also part of society, and most of society's laws still apply there (like those regarding physical violence, murder etc.). There's no higher entity that creates laws that need to be followed by nations as a whole. In other words you can't say that there's something wrong with the way a particualar nation treats it's citizens, by comapring it to another nation. If you do that's essentially ethnocentrism, which is simply wrong. One day when there will be a single world state this will no longer be a problem.

Sure, we may have to draw the line of where we stop intervening.   It can be at the country line.  The question still exist, is it right to let others suffer when you could stop it?

Read my above post.

Im not saying we should get involved, but when america does not come to the aid, it also gets blamed.  Ie, Gerogia, and Iran during their elections.

That's your country's own fault. If you start an interventionist policy people will be expecting you to entervene all the time, and in all situations. Of course what many don't realise is that your country doesn't practice interventionalism for any moral reason, but for fulfilling your own interest (see all of your countrie's immoral practices).