in my mind they do exactly the same thing. They kill people (with automatic weapons - many people) from a distance. Perhaps the numbers are greater, but after the first person (child/woman/man) what is the difference? It’s alright for a couple of innocents, but not for many? There is considerable hypocracy imbedded in this line of thinking. Basically America can have things its way, and Americans can have things their way, irrespective of the realities of its situation.
and in my mind, and reality, you are wrong. they both kill people, but so do knives, so do fireworks, so do appliances, so do cars, so animals, so does pretty much anything depending on how you use it. so called “automatic weapons” are seperate and distinct from regualr firearms, that is, handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. you also need to clarify what you mean by automatic weapons. there is condsiderable hypocrisy embedded in every line of thinking, including your own. personall, yes, i think one innocent or a few inncoents dying is more acceptable than many. thats why when we go to war, we still use guns, but not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. the power difference is much greater than you seem to think.
As for your definition of “crazy and dangerous” - good job!! You invaded a country with NO sign of WMD, and you completely ignored North Korea’s claims that “Hey - we have WMD!!”.
No, no no. wrong. There have been plenty of signs of WMD in Iraq, inculding the testimony’s of many Iraqi’s, and the simple fact that none have been found means jack shit. There are miles of tunnels under Iraq, there are hidden palaces, bunkers, and military instillations, plenty of locations where they could be hidden. not to mention, the US didnt go about the prewar phase very intelligently, basically telling saddam we are coming to find WMD’s, so if you have any, your in trouble. i wouldnt be surprised if he smuggled them out of the country.
also, wrong wrong wrong about North Korea. they were not ignored. I cant speak for the president, but in my mind, Iraq was a more immediate threat. while clearly neither country is exactly “stable” i think NK is much less of a threat. Saddam is a ruthless dictator, who murders his own citizens without care, and invades his neighbors, which is even worse among Arab nations. Kim Jong Il (sp?) is smarter than that. he wants to stay in power, and while hes not exactly a stable leader, hes not going to do something foolish, like attack anyone with his nuclear weapons, knowing he would be ousted and killed. if saddam had the missile systems, there is no doubt in my mind he would launch them immediately at the US and maybe others. Im happy that Bush went after Iraq first, because they are more of a threat, and they should have gone down 12 years ago, this was a long time coming.
In the meantime, France, Israel and Russia, as well as the Ukraine all have nuclear armaments
Im not sure what you are trying to prove with this.
as i look back on the post, i realized i didnt break it up very well, but o well.
