Why does America intervene all of the time? |
| Posted by: robert135 | | After so many instances where other countries problems grow out of hand sooner or later it will become our problem as well.
Instances. WWI, WWII, Korea, Bosnia, GulfWar 1, current Afghani war, war on terrorism, Mogedishu.
Lets look at the history.
WWI, german aggression threatens American allies France and England. America backs France and England with supplys only but basically stays out of the war till directly attacked, then has to come in and clean up.
WWII, german aggression threatens American allies France and England. America backs France and England with supplys only but basically stays out of the war till directly attacked, then has to come in and clean up.
Korea, North Korean Aggression threatens South Korea the world disagree’s with the NK aggression in the form of the UN. China backs North Korea. The US is the major force to push back NK aggression, while averting war with China. Does not want massive loss of life so leaves it’s mission incomplete and settles on a peace treaty with NK.
Now, N Korea violates treaties and makes WMD, threatens to make nukear weapons, and constantly is blackmailing S Korea, and the US unless the US and SK provide free oil and foods shipments to NK.
Bosnia, basically a bunch of racists slaughtering civilians over nothing. US backed by UN has to come in and clean up and pick up the tab to stop it before it spreads into other countries.
Mogedishu, UN peacekeeping force is in Mogedishu to work against a bunch of rival dictators and provide humanitarian aid, ineffective effort. US has a separate presence as well, and tries to take down a ruthless dictator to cut short the tab on cleaning up after the UN, but after loosing troops and having the “Black Hawk Down Scandal”, decides “It is not worth the effort”.
Later, poor, uneducated, and wallowing, Mogedishu becomes a terrorist haven.
Gulf war 1. Iraq invades Kuwait. The world disagree’s with Sadam and the US leads a force into Kuwait to remove the Iraqi army. Sadam destroys buildings, power plants, lights oil fields on fire and creates an environmental disaster of Kuwait. The US, is the major country picking up the tab for the clean up, and aid. The US pushes back the Iraqi army and goes to the UN for backup for an end to the conflict. Iraq agree’s to stop producing and trying to obtain WMD as part of the resolutions to end the war. During which time the US discovers enormous weapons labs in Iraq that their intelligence agencies didn’t have a clue about. (This scares the US leaders).
Afghanistan, US helps Afghanistan to defeat the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, and then leaves hoping that the independent people of Afghanistan can clean up their country and return to the world. Yet the country is taken over by drug smugglers and Islamic zealots. The US stays out of it, and believes that “If this is what the afghani people want, so be it”. 9/11 happens, direct ties to the Talaban and Osama. The US takes the gloves off. The US has to come in and clean up the mess that the afghani people CREATED. If they did not want that type of government they could have chosen something else. Yet, still the US has to pick up the tab for the recreation of their government and country.
Finally, the administration adopts a non-reactionary proactive policy on potential threats and starts looking at the world with proactive eyes. Where are the problems and where is there unfinished business?
Bush declares the Axis of Evil. Iraq = Sadam, N Korea, and Iran. Three powder kegs that either are havens of repression and blackmail or will soon be, with the one exception of IRAN in this who is an outright supporter of terrorist organizations, and this is probably just the beginning of the list.
The US goes to the UN stating their case, and unanimously gets resolution 1441 passed after some aggressive lobbying. The US congress authorizes the use of force. The US then allows months to pass to get cooperation from an uncooperative Iraq. The US then lobby’s the UN to back then in enforcing the resolutions already agreed to. France blocks this by saying they will not agree to anything and will veto anything, stopping all further UN diplomacy. The war begins.
I personally am glad that we are finally taking steps to stop BS situations from arising before they are out of hand; this is 70+ years in coming and is about time.
I know that the US is not a colonial power or does not even have colonial aspirations, however we do want a tidy planet and safety for ourselves and for our allies, and finally we are looking to minimize the cost by getting to and resolving potential problems before they really get going rather than when it is already done.
My real question is this, why are their not more countries with us?
Probably because they don’t want to pay for it, and they would rather just have someone else do it for them, and ***** about it for self-gratification.
 France, Germany, Russia | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rene | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by robert135
My real question is this, why are their not more countries with us? |
Because the Bush administration has been extremely arrogant, aggressive, disrespectful and condescending in its "diplomacy" with its friends.
After 9/11 everybody stood behind the US, but the Bush administration has repeatedly offended its allies and this affair was just the proverbial drop.
Here is a short list of some of the misconducts of the Bush administration.
After 9/11 Nato, backed by all european members, invoked the musketeer article and pledged Nato support to the US. The offer was turned down, but most european nations helped out in Afghanistan anyway, and are still there.
The Kyoto agreement on the environment had been negotiated for eight years, and numerous concessions had been made to the US to make it more palatable, and yet the Bush administration unilaterally turns down the result they had accepted during negotiations. This is done in a joint press conference with the German chancellor, who is in favour of Kyoto, but without informing him of the decision beforehand. Diplomatically it is a slap in the face in public. A major insult. Bush killed the good relations with Germany that day, and they have not recovered since.
The treaty of the ICC, the International Criminal Tribunal, intended to prosecute and hence deter, the Saddams of the future, was signed by Clinton, but Bush decides as one of his first acts of government to "unsign" it. He simply retracts the signature. After this no other nation can trust the signature of a US president, because it can just be unsigned. How is that for farsighted diplomacy! Not only does the US retract a signature, it also sets out on a campaign to actively subvert to treaty and undermine is credibility in the future.
Only recently the US singlehandedly vetoed an agreement that would allow poor third world nations to produce generic drugs to treat HIV/AIDS, apparently to protect some major US pharmaceutical companies. That veto will likely cost the lives of millions of people in poor contries that doesn't have the money to pay royalites for patents. Great attitude. If you're too poor to pay the rich, just go and die. See if we care!
The US has renounced the ABM treaty so it can build a sci-fi anti-missile defence, but in doing so is has killed nuclear disarmament. The russians recently stated that they have halted all nuclear disarmament work with the US. Is that going to make the world a safer place? The Russians have poor control over their nuclear weapons and one day one might fall into the hands of terrorists, but Bush prefers rearmament to disarmement, even at the cost of added risk of nuclear terrorism.
After 9/11 a new national security policy was decided, called the Bush Doctrine. It states that the US reserves the right to unilaterally and preemtively attack any country that the US government believe could be a threat to US security in the future, even if at the time the country doesn't constitute an imminent threat. The policy also states that the US reserves the right to use nuclean weapons against all nations, including those that do not possess nuclear weapons them selves, and including first use. The whole concept of preemptive aggression is a blatant breach of the UN Charter which the US has signed and which has legal validity in the US on par with the consitution.
In the whole run-up to the current war, the Bush administration's attitude has been that if the UN does not obey the US, it will be deemed 'irrelevant', hence to be 'relevant' the UN has become a rubberstamp for the US foreign policy. Why on earth should be rest of the world accept such a preposterous attitude?
Then in the UNSC Powell presents the US case against Iraq, with a flurry of "evidence" based on "solid intelligence", but unfortunately the "evidence" is totally flawed, much of it fake or forged as pointed out by Blix and El Baradei, or just copied from a ten year old student paper on Iraq. If that is the best proof the most powerful nation in the world can come up with, how are you going to convince anybody? It was just plain ridiculous.
When that didn't work, the US started a campaign of arm twisting and bribing of the poorer members of the UNSC, but at that time the US had completely destroyed any kind of credibility and even an old ally like Turkey turns down a bribe of $26bn, because it didn't want to be associated with such a still born project.
These are just some of the grievances the rest of the world has with the current US government. It has done everything to alienate its friends, so now it will have to fight its illegal war of aggression alone with its trusted poodle, the UK government.
If the US government had just had the slightest clue about the meaning of the word "diplomacy", it could have had its war a long time ago, but if you treat your friends badly, they will back away from you.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sean Kelly | | I think that's a good assessment, Rene: well done. Add that to the economic advantages that France, Germany and Russia get from Hussein remaining in power, and it becomes fairly clear why our friends in this matter are limited. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: robert135 | | What does any of this have to do with the point at hand?
Rene, you are pointing out a ton of completely non-related issues and trying to make them into something that justifies not backing the U.S. on THIS matter. The ICC, Kyoto, the AIDS thing, and the ABM has NOTHING to do with this war.
-
"After 9/11 a new national security policy was decided, called the Bush Doctrine. It states that the US reserves the right to unilaterally and preemtively attack any country that the US government believe could be a threat to US security in the future, even if at the time the country doesn't constitute an imminent threat. The policy also states that the US reserves the right to use nuclean weapons against all nations, including those that do not possess nuclear weapons them selves, and including first use. The whole concept of preemptive aggression is a blatant breach of the UN Charter which the US has signed and which has legal validity in the US on par with the consitution."
First, it is about time the US started taking some preemptive action against rogue countries and governments. Contrary to the way you are trying to make it sound this is a GOOD thing. Why?How? America did not just haul off and attack Iraq without any history or provication, the way you make it sound.
Let me put this to you very plainly. Imagine Sadam as a Child Molester, but when he is caught for his crimes he is not taken away from the child, but just told not to do it again, and also that he must have someone drop by unannounced to check on the child (the inspectors).
In this situation, if for any reason at all what so ever, in any government, if that person so much as looked wrong at the social worker he would have been taken down so fast it would have made his head spin. However with Sadam, he threatened the inspectors, lied to them, intimidated them, and then eventually threw them out of the country for years to have his way.
Again, no government would put up with this if they had any type of authority at all. However the UN did NOTHING! They just put harsher taxes on the man, and wouldn't have even done that if the US was not commited to punishing this guy. Now after years of this type of behavior, we have given him a LAST opportunity to change his tune, and all we get is lies.
How do we know he was lying? Take a look at the 38+ missles he had to destroy that were in clear violation. Back to the analogy, this is a violation of parol, back to jail, BUT NO! lets give this guy more time to screw his people, and perhaps plan to screw others as well.
Diplomacy is something to strive for, however it cannot be an excuse for inaction in a critical situation. The UN was very very wrong to put up with this S*** in the first place, and the US has to come clean up it's mess.....again.
-correcting spelling | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sean Kelly | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by robert135
What does any of this have to do with the point at hand?
Rene, you are pointing out a ton of completely non-related issues and trying to make them into something that justifies not backing the U.S. on THIS matter. The ICC, Kyoto, the AIDS thing, and the ABM has NOTHING to do with this war.
|
You're right, none of that has to do with the material you posted, but it does respond directly to your question with "well - they don't like us because we don't play nice" and cites the reasons why. It's a slight divergence from the topic, but responds directly to the question that your whole post seemed to boil down to.
I do agree with your original points.. just not your final conclusion 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rene | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Sean Kelly
I think that's a good assessment, Rene: well done. Add that to the economic advantages that France, Germany and Russia get from Hussein remaining in power, and it becomes fairly clear why our friends in this matter are limited. |
That is another thing. Many people seem to believe the propaganda that the US is into this for the good of the Iraqi people. That is utterly ridiculous.
In foreign policy there are only national interests (and sometimes the personal interests of the leaders), there are no morals or ethics. It is realpolitik. When moral or ethical argumentation is used, it is because they serve a purpose in the national interest.
National interests usually come in two shapes: money and control, often entagled.
If the US decides to spend $80bn on attacking Iraq, it is because the US leaders believe it is somehow in the US national interest (or their own). "Liberating" the Iraqi people is just a handy excuse that can help sell the expences to the taxpayers and voters.
When France and Russia oppose the attack, they do it for the same reason: national interests of money and control. The rest is rhetoric and propaganda to cover the real reasons.
All countries act like that in foreign affairs.
In the case of Iraq I think the Bush doctrine means a lot more that the few $bn the Russia and France can loose in Iraq. They can handle that, but the last thing they want is a rogue US roaming the globe bombing and killing at will. The rest of the world need the UN to restrain the US. The US has some 50% of the world's entire military spending, so if foreign relations are ultimately rule by military might, the rest of world will have a hard time. That is why the other nations react to strongly to the recent US attacks on the 'relevancy' of the UN.
Whether you believe it or not, it is also in the interest of the US to be restricted by the UN, even though the current US government apparently doesn't understand it. In an increasingly globalised economy, where a major part of the US economy is physically placed outside US territory in the form of out-sourcing, sub-contracting and the like, US businesses increasingly need stable international relations to work efficiently. If the US government doesn't respect the rules of the UN, WTO, WHO, etc, hurting relationships with trading partners, undermining common rules of conduct and weakening fora of conflict resolution, ultimately US businesses will lose money.
The same goes for all the rest of us, but due to the size of the US economy, it is more vulnerable if international economic relations and rules are put in jeopardy.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sable | |
| quote: |
| The ICC, Kyoto, the AIDS thing, and the ABM has NOTHING to do with this war. |
may be it has everything to do with the fact you are going there (almost) alone.
none believe bush administration anymore.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rene | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by robert135
What does any of this have to do with the point at hand?
Rene, you are pointing out a ton of completely non-related issues and trying to make them into something that justifies not backing the U.S. on THIS matter. The ICC, Kyoto, the AIDS thing, and the ABM has NOTHING to do with this war. |
You asked why nobody supports the US in this attack, and I explained why the US' friends and allies are losing faith in the good will of the US. That is why they are not joining in on the attack. There is a big pile of discontent with US unilateral behaviour, and this is in a way payback time. If the US doesn't stand up for their friends when their interests are at stake (Kyoto, ICC, disarmament), why should they stand up for the US when the US' interests are at stake?
Friendships and alliances have to work both ways. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The opposition to the attack has nothing to do with Saddam at all. He is just a pawn in a much larger game. Being against the attack does not mean being in favour of Saddam.
The current opposition between the US on one side and its european and middle eastern friends and allies on the other is about how the US uses and misuses its military and economic power in the world at large.
| quote: |
| First, it is about time the US started taking some preemptive action against rogue countries and governments. |
What I tried to explain is that the rest of the world is beginning to see the US under the current government as a rogue state.
In that view, we now have two rogue states fighting each other and putting stability in the Middle East in peril. Given the volatility of the region, everybody's future and safety is at stake here and none of the two warring parties can be influenced in any substantial way. Not an optimal situation for any country. Obviously they are complaining. They would be failing as states if they didn't.
If the US government persists in its unilateralism in the coming years, we will see the rest of the world forming partnerships and alliances so they can stand together against US dominance and defend themselves if they themselves should come under attack one day. Nobody knows who's next, right? I'm not talking of military attacks exclusively, but also economic and political attacks. This is not imaginary or ridiculous. When Germany persisted in its opposition to the attack, the US started to examine what kind of action the US could take to damage the German economy. That is very hostile act! With that kind of friends you don't need enemies and if the German government doesn't prepare for a future US economic aggression, they fail in their duty to defend the interests of the German nation.
It has already started. Just a few days ago France, Germany and Belgium announced that they are starting to prepare a further integration of the armed forces. This is basically a declaration of mistrust in both NATO and the EU, which could posibly be unable to secure their interests in the future.
Everybody has to look at their own security, militarily and economically, and if somebody feel threatened they have to prepare for the worst, which ultimately could even be a preemptive nuclear attack from the US, given the current National Security Policy.
In the coming years I believe we will see still closer ties between Germany and France, maybe even a de-facto federation, and they will cooperate still closer with Russia, in an attempt to create a counterweight to the US on the world scene.
As for China, I believe they will start a new wave of armaments, because they know they are becoming an ever larger threat to US world dominance, so they have be able to retaliate to a preemptive nuclear attack. The US anti-missile defence is certainly targetted against China, so they will build still more missiles to assure some will make it through the defences. We might also see a much more aggressive chinese foreign policy in forging alliances with nations in the NAM, especially those with essential natural ressources, such as oil. If the US takes Iraq, almost all the world's oil reserves will be under either US or Russian control, leaving China in a very weak strategic position. They will try to assure their future supplies while building still more nuclear plants and large dams.
Other nations that justly or injustly believe they are in the crosshair of US aggression will franticly try to obtain nuclear weapons or other ways of deterring a US preemtive attack. Just look at the difference between how the US treats Iraq, which doesn't have the Bomb, and North Korea and Pakistan, which both have the Bomb. A country like Iran will do everything to get that kind of protection. So will other countries, spelling the end of non-proliferation. More countries with nuclear weapons means more nuclear weapons and increased risk such weapons fall in the hands of terrorists. At the same time the US is creating still more islamist extremists.
In my view the current US administration and the Bush Doctrine is a major threat to the future peace and stability of the world. I sincerely hope the citizens of the USA will change their mind in 2004 and elect a more peaceloving government.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: robert135 | | My god, are you really that paranoid?
Do you believe for one instant that the US would ATTACK France? or any other democratic western nation?
Trade wars happen all of the time between western nations, including sanctions and what not, before this, and they will happen after this. My god, get a grip people.
US dominance? Of What?
The US did a regime change operation in Afghanistan because they directly attacked us.
The US is Iraq because of 12 years of non compliance to UN resolutions, and to rid the world of an evil dictator.
Bush is not my favorite president, and hopefully he will be gone in a year, max 5 years (so who has time for world domination). And the US has not permanently occupied or controlled a nation in around 100 years.
Seriously, I read some of these opinions and they are so extreme that I really cannot even see how that opinion ever came about. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: will824 | | Hello, USA always interfere with other country because they have always economical interest in everywhere, something like the american dream, so they are always looking to take advantage from other countries, anyway it doesnt really care for the people but for the resources. Capitalism. I dont agree with that but neither can I judge them... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rene | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by robert135
My god, are you really that paranoid? |
Read the Bush Doctrine and you'll see what's paranoid. Read the Project
for a New American Century, and you'll see what's paranoid.
These documents form the basis of the national security policy of the
current US government, and they say that the US reserves the right to
attack any nation that in the future might threaten
US supremacy in the world.
| quote: |
Do you believe for one instant that the US would ATTACK France? or any
other democratic western nation? |
I am not talking the immediate future, but if the current policies
remain in force for another ten to twenty years, I am convinced there
will be some very serious conflicts between the US and Western Europe.
Not necessarily armed conflicts, but serious conflicts.
Just listen to how the extreme right in the US talks about France. That
kind of rhetoric is very disturbing when it comes from senior government
advisors in a country with 50% of the global military spending and 6000
nuclear warhead at their disposal.
| quote: |
Trade wars happen all of the time between western nations, including
sanctions and what not, before this, and they will happen after this. My
god, get a grip people. |
The Bush Doctrine and the Project for a New American Century indicate
that trade wars can be resolved with military might in the future.
| quote: |
| US dominance? Of What? |
The world economy.
You react as if the US is some lilliput state. It is not. It commands
50% of global military spending, 50% of global R&D, 30% of the global
economy. The US is a massive force, towering tall above the rest of
us. Now the US declares that it will rely on that military and economic
might even more in the future to have things its way, and we are
supposed to roll over and submit!
| quote: |
The US did a regime change operation in Afghanistan because they
directly attacked us. |
The entire western world recognised and supported that attack. There
are troops from many countries in Afghanistan today. They are currently
under German command. No division there. All shared the same interests
in fighting terrorism.
| quote: |
The US is Iraq because of 12 years of non compliance to UN resolutions,
and to rid the world of an evil dictator. |
This is so naive. Do you believe anything you hear, as long as it comes
from your own government?
There are no morals in foreign policy and the US does not spend $75bn
and the lifes of many soldiers to unilaterally enforce selected UN
resolutions and save the Iraqi people from an 'evil dictator'. The US
only invests that kind of ressources if its government thinks there are
important US interests at stake. In the Middle East these interests are
easy to see, both economic, regional and geopolitical interests. The
rest is just propaganda to make the bitter pill of expenses and human
sacrifices go down with the taxpayers and voters.
Don't be so gullible with respect to your own government's propaganda.
Try to be a bit critical of what you hear. The US is in Iraq because
the US has interests in Iraq, economically, regionally and
geopolitically. There are no other reasons.
If the US really wanted to enforce UN resolutions unilaterally, it could
start with Israel. You have 30 years of non compliance with UN
resolutions in Israel, and yet they are protected all the way.
If the US really wanted to save suppress people, they sould be fighting
50 wars now all over the world. Some very oppressive regimes are
actively supported by the US, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, the
Central Asian republics. Why aren't the people of these nations
liberated? Because their governments are allies with the US and do as
they are told.
Before that the US helped some very evil dictators to power, like the
fascist Pinochet in Chile where the US helped overthrow a democratically
elected government, and the Shah in Iran, where the US supported a coup
d'etat against a legal and internationally recognised goverment, just
because it had hurt US economic interests by nationalising the oil
industry. Both dictators went on to kill and torture thousands of their
own subjects, with the tacit consent of the US.
There are no morals in foreign policy, only national interests.
| quote: |
Bush is not my favorite president, and hopefully he will be gone in a
year, max 5 years (so who has time for world domination). And the US
has not permanently occupied or controlled a nation in around 100
years. |
The US economy remains dominant even when Bush is gone. It is not a
matter of a single person. After Bush the next president might or might
not decide to uphold the Bush Doctrine and the aggressive US foreign
policy. The rest of the world cannot know and has to take everything
into account when they decide what their national interests are.
The US does not need to occupy other nations militarily. Often a few
bases are enough, and the US has military bases all over the world.
As for controlling a nation, the US has done that many times over, by
instating puppet regimes, just as in Chile and Iran earlier. Now the
same is likely to happen in Iraq.
| quote: |
Seriously, I read some of these opinions and they are so extreme that I
really cannot even see how that opinion ever came about. |
Such views might be extreme for someone who really believes that the US
is the white knight set in this world by divine intervention to save all
the others from evil, but the rest of the world cannot base their future
on such wishful thinking about the motives of the US. They have to take
everything into account, including the prospect of an unrestrained USA
that uses its military and economic might to monopolise essential
segments of the world economy.
You cannot expect other nations to just roll over and submit, if that is
not in their own interest. The US has publicly stated that such nations
can be attacked at will and without warning, even with nuclear weapons,
if the US government believes it in the national interest of the US.
They have to take their precautions. Anything else would be
irresponsible to their citizens.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dilca | | oh dear.. you americans.. you really dont understand.. you shouldnt read just your history books... you like to say how you've saved europe from "evil" germany twice.. but .. in WWI Germany had all the rights to attack UK and france - they had colonies all over the world and didnt want to share ... well why would they have cheap labour and other sources...in WWII it was different.. nacism was really a threat .. but you didn't go to war until you were forced to go... and USSR was who really saved us from nacism (no that i am sayin communism is much better than nacism)...
and one thing i dont understand.. thats your unbelievable faith in democracy and capitalism.. just look situation in Russia, latin america.. they've got mafia and organized crime instead of better standart of living.. you just dont understand that some societies are just not ready for democracy yet..
No hard feelings | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: robert135 | | No hard feelings taken. I agree with you that some countries are not ready for democracy. It is a very advanced sort of society and difficult social concept to follow especially when the basic idea is that of majority rule but minority rights, and that even though someone else has an opinion that is so vulgar or offensive, however they are entitled to that opinion and it cannot be taken away by force.
Now don't get me wrong, once that person becomes a criminal like the Iraqi government by killing and torturing their own people, then obviously they have very limited rights, but if it is part of a peaceful process it is allowed.
"You cannot expect other nations to just roll over and submit, if that is not in their own interest. The US has publicly stated that such nations can be attacked at will and without warning, even with nuclear weapons, if the US government believes it in the national interest of the US. They have to take their precautions. Anything else would be irresponsible to their citizens."
This is a completely respectible point and could justify the opposition from some countries if you look at it idealistically, but we all know that there are much less ideal motives coming from many countries around this conflict. However I have to disagree fully with the whole point of the nuclear weapon declaration.
I will make this completely clear, the US people and congress would NEVER allow the use of nuclear weapons for anything except the most unbelievably aggregious offenses.
I do not care for an instant about some bull S*** government document says we can do this or that. The whole US government is made up of a mighty amount of checks and balances, and even when that does not convince you, lets look at very recent history.
9/11 a direct strike against the US ON OUR SOIL! I point this out not to bridge it into the war with Iraq, but to seriously show that one of the most devistating attacks ever made against the US was done under THIS president, less than 2 years ago, and what was the result? Nuclear war? a knee jerk reaction to attack anyone that might be a hint of a target?
No, the US stood firm, dealt with the tragedy looked and hunted for MONTHS for the exact culperits of the war went to our allies around the world, and put out direct evidence of accountability for the attacks. Created a coalition and overthrew an incredibly represive government under the control and influence of the worlds most dangerous terrorist organization. Then handed the government over to that countries people, and became a huge proponent and fund raiser for that country and their citizens, and all the while that the military operations were under way the US made an incredible effort not to harm civilians just as they are doing now.
What more do you need to test the intentions and direct reaction of the US? a Nuclear weapon leveling one of our biggest cities? We have gone through the crucible and come out the otherside clean. Can you say for an instant that other countries would do the same? China? Russia? France? Germany? Iran? N Korea? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: aivee | | US is the superpower of the world... Other countries are jealous of us because we have everything... For other countries to say that we are after their natural resources, oh please! Those countries are very poor, in other words, if we invade those countries, we will end up feeding and putting those people in welfare... Also, all the information that we have are from CNN or news, which is definitely not enough because classifed information will never be released to the public... We should also remember that Pres. Bush and his staff have inteligence-gathering staff and resources, and that they meet everyday, even every hour and talk about our security... Also, the US's policy is to prevent the cancer from spreading... Yes, we do have nuclear weapons but we will never use it for non-sense reasons, if we don't dropped it in Japan during WW2, do you think Japan would stop invading the Asian countries? If we didn't go to war against Hitler, do you think he would ever stopped? Let's face it, the world expects too much from the US - if we didn't do anything, we are bad, if we do something to help other countries, they will also think that we are bad... No matter what we do, other countries wouldn't like us because we are best, and that's the reason why the US has the highest number of immigrants in the world, because the people in other countries wants to have a way better life in the US... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dilca | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by robert135
9/11 a direct strike against the US ON OUR SOIL! I point this out not to bridge it into the war with Iraq, but to seriously show that one of the most devistating attacks ever made against the US was done under THIS president, less than 2 years ago, and what was the result? Nuclear war? a knee jerk reaction to attack anyone that might be a hint of a target?
What more do you need to test the intentions and direct reaction of the US? a Nuclear weapon leveling one of our biggest cities? We have gone through the crucible and come out the otherside clean. Can you say for an instant that other countries would do the same? China? Russia? France? Germany? Iran? N Korea? |
you wrote: "9/11 a direct strike against the US ON OUR SOIL!"
well i guess you didnt live on Earth before? Was the fence to high? terrorism isnt something new...there was only one (big i admit) terrorist attack. i was at home in 9/11 and i watched CNN and they wrote: breaking news "America under attack"... they didnt write : terrorist attack or something more appropriate...
than you attacked afghanistan and everyone supported you(including me). but why dont you stop now? iraq has nothing to do with it.
and yes i sincerely believe that other powers wouldnt get paranoic.
aivee: other countries are not jealous... they just dont know how to compete with USA who needs war for economic reasons every 10 years.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: aivee | | Dilca, if the US needs war every 10 years for economic reasons, why do you think ALL US EMBASSIES in the world have a very long list and a very long line of people trying to get US visas to have a way better life in the US? Do you know that if we invade other poor countries, the US will end up FEEDING AND PUTTING THOSE PEOPLE IN WELFARE? If you're not familiar with WELFARE in the US, it means that the government will be giving MONEY to those poor, jobless, or lazy people, which will also include FOOD STAMPS (free food), MEDI-CAL (free health insurance) and Section 8 (free housing)... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | | AIVEE, what does have US more than other developped countries? Went to USA and did not notice anything particular... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dilca | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by aivee
Dilca, if the US needs war every 10 years for economic reasons, why do you think ALL US EMBASSIES in the world have a very long list and a very long line of people trying to get US visas to have a way better life in the US? |
other western countries have very long lists too.. in fact even in (ex communist) Slovenia many have stopped on their way to 'old europe'
i dont believe in american dream
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rambo | |
| quote: |
| and a very long line of people trying to get US visas to have a way better life in the US? |
Since you mention that.
I really wish these folks would all go to Slovenia or Morocco or Thailand, etc... instead and give the US Customs guys a break.
Everytime I am in Moscow it is disturbing to see so many people over there who are trying to get into the US.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rene | |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by aivee US is the superpower of the world... |
Nobody disputes that.
| quote: |
| Other countries are jealous of us because we have everything... |
Like free healthcare! Like free education for all!
Why don't you ask some of the poor people in the US if they have everything.
The US is no doubt a great nation, but it is not heaven on earth. There are many places on earth that has just as high a standard of living as in the US. There are countries with better healthcare than the US. There are countries with less crime than the US. There are countries with better education that the US. There are countries with less poor people that the US. There are many many countries with a lower murder rate that the US.
Don't gloat when there is so little to gloat about. The US is not the only place in the world where you can have a good life if you're lucky.
| quote: |
For other countries to say that we are after their natural resources, oh
please! Those countries are very poor, in other words, if we invade
those countries, we will end up feeding and putting those people in
welfare... |
It is kind of funny, given you statement, how often the US intervenes in resource rich countries, while leaving less fortunate countries to themselves. If you are so keen on saving the world, why don't you intervene in Zimbabwe or some other nation with few resources. Don't be ridiculous. Everybody can see the US is in this for the oil, not just in Iraq but in the entire region.
As for development aid, the US gives lesser in development aid than any other industrialised nation, less than 0.1% of GNP. Several other industrialised nations give up to 1% of GNP, that is ten times more.
Furthermore, US aid is 70% bound for purchasing US goods, leaving the recipients little choice in what kind of development they what. Many other industrialised nations require a much lower return rate, down to 30%, giver the recipients more autonomy over their own future.
Very few industrialised nations give less aid to the developing countries than the US. If you compare the aid given by the US and the aid given by the members of the EU, the US is way behind.
So no, you are not helping people very much.
| quote: |
Also, all the information that we have are from CNN or news,
which is definitely not enough because classifed information will never
be released to the public... We should also remember that Pres. Bush
and his staff have inteligence-gathering staff and resources, and that
they meet everyday, even every hour and talk about our security... |
The current US administration has a long track record of lying and misleading the public, just look at all the fake and forged 'proof' that was presented to the UN in an attempt to ligitimize the attack on Iraq. If you trust the good will of you president, I have a large iron construction in Paris I'd like to sell you. Special price for you, my friend.
| quote: |
| Also, the US's policy is to prevent the cancer from spreading... |
What cancer? The cancer of illegal attacks on sovereign nations? The cancer of breaking international treaties? The cancer of lying to the UN and the international community? The cancer of supporting oppressive regimes around the world?
| quote: |
| Yes, we do have nuclear weapons but we will never use it for non-sense reasons, |
Please read the National Security Policy of your beloved president. It states that the US reserves the right to use nuclear weapons, including first use, whenever it pleases, also against nations that don't possess nuclear weapons themselves.
| quote: |
| if we don't dropped it in Japan during WW2, do you think Japan would stop invading the Asian countries? |
Japan already had stopped, because it was already defeated when the bombs were dropped. It was just a matter of time, and all the bombs did was speed it up.
| quote: |
| If we didn't go to war against Hitler, do you think he would ever stopped? |
He was stopped when the US entered the war. Remember the war started in 1939 and the US only entered the war in december 1941, and only after it was attacked and Germany declared war in the US. When the US entered the war, Germany was already half broken, mostly by the USSR. The US entered so late it could only help finish Hitler off, not defeat him. We have to thank the USSR for that.
| quote: |
Let's face it, the world expects too much from the US - if we didn't do
anything, we are bad, if we do something to help other countries, they
will also think that we are bad... |
I don't think the problem is that you do to little or too much, it is that you go alone. The US is not a good team player. It continously breaks the rules and behaves in a anti-social way, thus pushing the others away. It is a bit like the schoolyard bully. The others have to put up with him because he is stronger, but nobody likes him because he is violent and egoistic. Be a team-player, despite your size, and you will have friends again.
| quote: |
No matter what we do, other countries wouldn't like us because we are
best, and that's the reason why the US has the highest number of
immigrants in the world, because the people in other countries wants to
have a way better life in the US... |
That is exactly the attitude people don't like. You're not the best, you're just the strongest. Don't mix up the two.
If you have a friend that continously keeps telling you he is better than you, how long will he remain your friend?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: zid | | Rene...thanks for the great reading. Though I cannot argue any of the "economical" explainations (since I just don't know the facts or the statistics....but I will soon...) I would like to "zoom" into one comment you made.
I do lean towards disagreeing with you when you rebutted on a point, describing the US as "schoolyard bullies" and that the "US is not a good team player". We did not go "this alone"...we have allies in this that agree with us.
That can be said of any (and every) country. Some countries who ask for the assistance and/or ally with the US know that we are very outspoken on ideas and views....maybe that does make us "schoolyard bullies" in a sense. But every nation flexes their muscle in one way or another...did the French play nice with the former East Block nations who took our side when it came to joining the EU (to explain, if some of you are not aware...the French or I should say their leader "informed" some former East Block nations who were up for vote to join in the EU, that by siding with the US it would be a negative mark and could result non-membership or the process taking longer for them)? So by their spoken words and actions....did that make them "schoolyard bullies"...because by your own description it did make them "school yard bullies". They did not play nice with others.
I would have to say that nearly every "western" nation is to some degree "egotiscal". The European Big 3 couldn't and didn't get it their way....just as the US couldn't and didn't get it their way and now, they are acting exactly alike. So to only call the US "school yard bullies" would be incorrect.
However, I would agree with you, if you did throw in the fact that there are numerous "playgrounds" and that each one of these "playgrounds" have their OWN "school yard bully". The bully that most just tolerate.....
Unfortunately, I do have to agree with you on your last statement....sometimes Americans (and I am one and proud to be one) do show "over"-pride and that can be (and is...probably rightly so) perceived as negative. We are proud of who we are and what we are and we tend to flaunt it...but then hey...we are, as a nation, young and do make some mistakes. Don't tell me that the Brits, French, Spanish, Germans, Russians, etc....somewhere in their past (I mean you guys have castles and cities older then our country) did not flaunt or show "over"-pride in your perspective countries. We'll learn....just give us a couple hundred years to catch up to you guys....in some ways. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: aivee | | .sometimes Americans (and I am one and proud to be one) do show "over"-pride and that can be (and is...probably rightly so) perceived as negative. We are proud of who we are and what we are and we tend to flaunt it...but then hey...we are, as a nation, young and do make some mistakes. Don't tell me that the Brits, French, Spanish, Germans, Russians, etc....somewhere in their past (I mean you guys have castles and cities older then our country) did not flaunt or show "over"-pride in your perspective countries. We'll learn....just give us a couple hundred years to catch up to you guys....in some ways.
Zid, I totally agree with you... I am proud and will always be proud to be an American, and I will always support our troops... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: aivee | | BTW, if you're in the US and not happy in America, I will buy you one-way ticket to go to Iraq and live there forever... If you are not in the US and hates us so much, go to your country's US Embassy and tell your people to stop applying for US visas, instead, tell them to apply for visas to go to Iraq, Iran, Cambodia and North Korea... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Grimminick | | aivee,
Iraq may be poor but it has the second largest oil reserves in the world. US interest in this oil is high and to hold it for its own would help to hold the rest of the world to ransom regarding trade. Every country needs oil!!
Also, Japan was a spent force by the time the two nuclear bombs wee dropped on it. It was a gesture of military strength to Russi and had nothing to do with stopping Japan. Also nuclear warfare was used by America and Britain in the form of depleted uranium by tanks and A-10 Warthogs.
The world id fearful of America not jealous. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rambo | |
| quote: |
| US interest in this oil is high and to hold it for its own would help to hold the rest of the world to ransom regarding trade. |
Spare us the bull poop.
You clowns were spewing this very same line of crap back in 1991.
The only difference between the bull poop then and the bull poop now is that of a slight color variation with the consistency of this recent bowel movement taking on the characterstic more in line with that of diarrhea.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Grimminick | | Oh shut up Rambo, you bore,
If you don't believe me then listen to one of your pals Brigadier-General William Looney, US air force who was the director of bombing in Iraq during the first Gulf War:
They know we own the country...we dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when theres a lot of oil out there we need.
Just another military man who didn't know when to keep his mouth shut | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Grimminick | | That was of course in 1991 when we were spewing that smae line of crap | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: robert135 | | Grimminick, your accounts of Japan are a bit off.
First, the Japanese attacked the US, not the other way around, and used suicide tactics of fanatics in the persuit of their cause. Also, please remember that WWII did not have the persision guided munitions we have today. Carpet bombing by all sides where if you within a quarter mile of your target was seen as reasonable, was the norm. In a full force invasion of Japan the US would have had to kill Millions of Japanese by all estimates.
"But the Japanese were beaten." In reality, yes they were, but in the hearts of the people they continued to fight for every single block of land and were completely behind the rule of Japan, and they said "No Surrender". You act as if the US did not attempt to negotiate an end of hostilities before they dropped the bomb. They did, and Japan said "NO!, Never!". So, bomb one. Are you ready to give an unconditional surrender? answer = No. Bomb two, are you ready to give an unconditional surrender? Yes.
Let's not rewrite history by saying that the United States was the aggressor here, and that the United States did not try other means.
Secondly, the United States was selling massive amounts of arms to the countries fighting Germany and Japan, which includes England, France, Spain, Russia, and China. We had thrown our support behind our allies long before we were attacked. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Rambo | |
| quote: |
| If you don't believe me |
No, I don't.
Setting that aside, though, I do believe that you believe it.
As such, I am willing to walk the walk with you on this and get you checked into to the nearest mental hospital, ASAP.
Don't be afraid. I'm with you every step of the way. Once they get ya doped on meds, I assure you, everything will be okay.
Walk through your fears, Grimminick.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Grimminick | | Robert,
I am well aware that Japan attacked America first. They did it at Pearl Harbour...see...I know. Buit that wasn't a point I was making. Japan was history at the time of the bomb dropping but they hadn't surrendered, you're right. Question is: Does wiping out two cities of civilians justify getting the Japanese army to surrender? I would be extremely worried if you said yes to that.
How long would Japan have carried on fighting? Who knows but they'd have to be superbeings to equal or surpass the carnage made by America to justify that swift end to the war. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: robert135 | | Grimmick, really this discussion is just academic since neither of us had to make that decision in the time that the conflict was actually being fought and millions of lives were being lost.
That was a very very VERY hard decision to make, and I am glad I did not have to make it, and in all reality no one knows what they would do. Oh you can say rationally what you might do now completely removed from the time, but in the situation it is all different. | | Reply To this Message
|
Post-9/11 Era Forum: Why does America intervene all of the time?
|
