American Juve (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
- Status
Ask the thousands and thousands of Iraqi's who have been terrorized by Saddam what they think........
The Shiites had NO say in ANYTHING before we came into town....now they dont thank us for anything.......
Is your country or NATO going to clean up the mess of a nuclear strike on my country ???? I didnt think so......... Would WE on yours ??? You bet !!!!
Al Queida has also threatened to strike Norway...is that because of Bush too ?????
The Shiites had NO say in ANYTHING before we came into town....now they dont thank us for anything.......
Is your country or NATO going to clean up the mess of a nuclear strike on my country ???? I didnt think so......... Would WE on yours ??? You bet !!!!
Al Queida has also threatened to strike Norway...is that because of Bush too ?????
I'm certainly not doubting the fact that Saddam is out of power is a good thing, that is a given. What I'm doubting is your motivation for going to war, wich to me has seemed very... changing.
If a nuclear strike was made against America I certainly believe that Nato would you guys out, you don't think so? I don't think America abandoning/overriding Nato would do anyone much good. It would further polarize America and the rest of the world, and in the end cause more trouble. I, as most, feel that the current Nato is old and based on the cold war, it needs changing. Still, I don't know how good other options without Nato sounds to me.
Al Quaida threatened Norway cause our current goverment has aided the US in several of it's recent operations. That's one of the problems I have with our current goverment, I didn't vote for them and probably never will, so I can't really comment.
If a nuclear strike was made against America I certainly believe that Nato would you guys out, you don't think so? I don't think America abandoning/overriding Nato would do anyone much good. It would further polarize America and the rest of the world, and in the end cause more trouble. I, as most, feel that the current Nato is old and based on the cold war, it needs changing. Still, I don't know how good other options without Nato sounds to me.
Al Quaida threatened Norway cause our current goverment has aided the US in several of it's recent operations. That's one of the problems I have with our current goverment, I didn't vote for them and probably never will, so I can't really comment.
Sure, Saddam out of Iraq is a very good thing. But if you use bad leaders as a justification for invading sovereign nations, where does it end? Particularly given the gross inconsistencies in American foreign policy over the years... The American dictator of the month club.
One minute we're supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran, Osama Bin Laden against the USSR, etc. And the next moment we're dropping bombs on them. Something tells me our current relationship with Pakistan is going to take the same turn south in just a few years.
This country has a history of creating its own future monsters with it's short-sighted foreign policies. Maybe -- just maybe -- the root of the problem to be addressed isn't in these foreign regimes, but with how we support them and put them in power in the first place.
One minute we're supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran, Osama Bin Laden against the USSR, etc. And the next moment we're dropping bombs on them. Something tells me our current relationship with Pakistan is going to take the same turn south in just a few years.
This country has a history of creating its own future monsters with it's short-sighted foreign policies. Maybe -- just maybe -- the root of the problem to be addressed isn't in these foreign regimes, but with how we support them and put them in power in the first place.
Wait until the president of Pakistan (Musharraf) gets assassinated, or leaves office. And wait until the present admin in Iran gets replaced, do you know who will end up taking over....... RADICALS, and both countries possess nuclear warheads......... So you tell me why we shouldnt do something about it, before it happens ??????!!!
Yeah its the same with every other nation it seems. The Uk and America do the dirty work, but someone has to do it. It would be interesting to see how people from these nations that would rather spend all there time complaining about how we are doing things react when terrorists make their nation number one target, or attack it.
Its also hard to be against war on terrorists when your daily life is interupted like when terrorists planned to carry bombs into Old Trafford. The UK are lucky to not have had a serious attack, and the only reason we havent is because our national security is so good right now, and alot of that is thanks to america.
I dont even consider what neutral countries have to say, you gotta be in to feel it. And if and when you do feel it im sure your mind will quickly change.
Its also quite funny to see people here saying that allied forces only 'attack' a country when their is something in it for them. Have a look at the history books people.
Its also hard to be against war on terrorists when your daily life is interupted like when terrorists planned to carry bombs into Old Trafford. The UK are lucky to not have had a serious attack, and the only reason we havent is because our national security is so good right now, and alot of that is thanks to america.
I dont even consider what neutral countries have to say, you gotta be in to feel it. And if and when you do feel it im sure your mind will quickly change.
Its also quite funny to see people here saying that allied forces only 'attack' a country when their is something in it for them. Have a look at the history books people.
"Doing something about it" and toppling a regime aren't necessary equivalent.
And the crux of my point was this: if history is any guide, whomever we support in place in a Pakistan or Iraq will soon after become American public enemy #1. Isn't it worth examining these consistent failures before repeating the same mistakes?
You know the classic definition of insanity, right?: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
Given our success rate, I'm not convinced that, over the longer term, anyone we support and help put into power would be any less of an evil than what would evolve without our support. That's a clear failure of foreign policy that needs rethinking.
And the crux of my point was this: if history is any guide, whomever we support in place in a Pakistan or Iraq will soon after become American public enemy #1. Isn't it worth examining these consistent failures before repeating the same mistakes?
You know the classic definition of insanity, right?: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
Given our success rate, I'm not convinced that, over the longer term, anyone we support and help put into power would be any less of an evil than what would evolve without our support. That's a clear failure of foreign policy that needs rethinking.
I agree 100% River. Like I said before, the reason why we (America) has so much involvement in worldly affairs is because we are capable of it, and are obliged to help out. It would be ignorant of us to sit back, and not help with conflicts all over the world. Maybe a lot of people would like us to extract our forces and aid, but wouldn't we be considered selfish if we acted in that way? That wouldn't help our image as a Nation at all, would it? It seems like no matter the circumstance, there will always be people who disagree with our actions. So we try to act in the best possible way, which is to give aid and help across the world, baring of course the situation in Iraq which is very complex. But as I see it, its better to help than just sit back and watch the world go to pot. Its not all about the benefits for us, ya know.
the problem he sees wasn't with "defending." It was with "nesting" in these two countries that he's not happy with.
Anyhow, that's not the reason why he's after the us.
It's probibly because our beloved "human rights seeking" and "good-doer" government are continuely supplying Israel with WEAPONS and ignoring the dozens of UN resolutions that they've failed to comply with, all while pretending to want peace in the region. The fact that Israel has hundreds of US allowed Nukes is enough to create instability and fear. All this while they countinue to occupy lands, build their seperating wall preventing people from trying to live a normal life, and demolishing towns and villages on the way ( not to mention all the mass killings and rapings). (Genocide anyone?!)
so dont give my this BS about we're the super-heros of the world rescuing people from opression. It's all for the power and money at the expense of many lives.
We helped Afghanistan to keep the USSR crippled at war. It was a great idea, but dont ever say that it was for the Afghans.
We helped Saudi Arabia and Kuwait because of Bush's good ties with the Saudi royal family. Our gov. needed them and we got shit-loads of oil in return (around $60 billions worth). The US was keeping it's indirect control of the largest oil producing country too from falling into Saddam's Hands. of course, who was he a threat to if he did occupy KSA and Kuwait? A threat to the USA? of course not. He would just become another force in the region like Israel. (except without the Nukes!! )
Sorry, but our beloved government doesn't give a rats ass about any people.
In Kosova, Bosnia, and Chechnya, help either never came or was years late.
Yes, Saddam was terrible, and Osama is a madman, but the fact that remains is that our gov. is in it for the power and money at the expense of other human lives. We're not exactly acting any better than Saddam.
BTW, are the US even thinking about North Korea?! of course not. While We were thinking of going into Iraq, The ,equally to Saddam, terrorizing North Korean president was admiting to have Nuckes. I dont see our gov. lining up now to lend a helping hand to their people and the region against a terrible regime.
Defending your own country is top priority, I fully agree, but playing double standard and pretending to be a super hero all while getting thousands of people killed is another. What's bad for us Amercians is that these barbaric "you may indirectly hit me one day, therefore i'll hit you harder now" tactic is only going to make things worse and make people look down on us and make others hate us.
The solution is to look at WHY WHY and, I repeat, WHY many people hate us. Do you really think that we are a super/perfect race and others are just evil who want to kill us all?!
We should just mind our own business and stop playing lying to the world.
Money? yes sadly.
Nuckes?... I highly doubt it.
Anyhow, that's not the reason why he's after the us.
It's probibly because our beloved "human rights seeking" and "good-doer" government are continuely supplying Israel with WEAPONS and ignoring the dozens of UN resolutions that they've failed to comply with, all while pretending to want peace in the region. The fact that Israel has hundreds of US allowed Nukes is enough to create instability and fear. All this while they countinue to occupy lands, build their seperating wall preventing people from trying to live a normal life, and demolishing towns and villages on the way ( not to mention all the mass killings and rapings). (Genocide anyone?!)
so dont give my this BS about we're the super-heros of the world rescuing people from opression. It's all for the power and money at the expense of many lives.
We helped Afghanistan to keep the USSR crippled at war. It was a great idea, but dont ever say that it was for the Afghans.
We helped Saudi Arabia and Kuwait because of Bush's good ties with the Saudi royal family. Our gov. needed them and we got shit-loads of oil in return (around $60 billions worth). The US was keeping it's indirect control of the largest oil producing country too from falling into Saddam's Hands. of course, who was he a threat to if he did occupy KSA and Kuwait? A threat to the USA? of course not. He would just become another force in the region like Israel. (except without the Nukes!! )
Sorry, but our beloved government doesn't give a rats ass about any people.
In Kosova, Bosnia, and Chechnya, help either never came or was years late.
Yes, Saddam was terrible, and Osama is a madman, but the fact that remains is that our gov. is in it for the power and money at the expense of other human lives. We're not exactly acting any better than Saddam.
BTW, are the US even thinking about North Korea?! of course not. While We were thinking of going into Iraq, The ,equally to Saddam, terrorizing North Korean president was admiting to have Nuckes. I dont see our gov. lining up now to lend a helping hand to their people and the region against a terrible regime.
Defending your own country is top priority, I fully agree, but playing double standard and pretending to be a super hero all while getting thousands of people killed is another. What's bad for us Amercians is that these barbaric "you may indirectly hit me one day, therefore i'll hit you harder now" tactic is only going to make things worse and make people look down on us and make others hate us.
The solution is to look at WHY WHY and, I repeat, WHY many people hate us. Do you really think that we are a super/perfect race and others are just evil who want to kill us all?!
We should just mind our own business and stop playing lying to the world.
Money? yes sadly.
Nuckes?... I highly doubt it.
They would probiby answer: "Who the fvck gave you permission to bomb my kids and relatives?!... Why don't you leave already, havn't you done enough?....."
Maybe it's because their country is more fvcked up now than it was before the war (at the time of the sanctions and starvation).
Yeah, those nucks are a ***** aren't they? jeez...I wounder who the hell invented them? :down:
Yes. Norway wouldn't be in Iraq if the US hadn't invaded.
They're probibly just ass-kissing a la Fred...
Maybe it's because their country is more fvcked up now than it was before the war (at the time of the sanctions and starvation).
Yeah, those nucks are a ***** aren't they? jeez...I wounder who the hell invented them? :down:
Yes. Norway wouldn't be in Iraq if the US hadn't invaded.
They're probibly just ass-kissing a la Fred...
I wouldn't go that far. But now that you point it out, it is a really interesting point -- as far-fetched as it seems.
It's really hard to say with terrorists -- they often don't act in any sort of logical manner (i.e., in thinking of how best to strategically reach their ends, if their ends are even rooted in reality to begin with ... 72 virgins aside). I don't think anyone believes that Osama would have called off the Sept 11 attacks if, say, Al Gore was in office instead. But you could make a case that "regime change" is an influencing factor. The pre-election bombings in Madrid being one example, though that was maybe more about influencing outcomes than being an outcome.
What I particularly find intriguing was a quote, in the movie "Control Room," from a former BBC reporter who is now at Al Jazeera. When asked who he thought would "stop America" (i.e., keep American military from unbridled steamrolling of the entire world), his answer was "Americans". And he believed it. For all the inequities of power, money, and access among Americans, that's still a pretty empowering statement about the average Joe voter.
It's really hard to say with terrorists -- they often don't act in any sort of logical manner (i.e., in thinking of how best to strategically reach their ends, if their ends are even rooted in reality to begin with ... 72 virgins aside). I don't think anyone believes that Osama would have called off the Sept 11 attacks if, say, Al Gore was in office instead. But you could make a case that "regime change" is an influencing factor. The pre-election bombings in Madrid being one example, though that was maybe more about influencing outcomes than being an outcome.
What I particularly find intriguing was a quote, in the movie "Control Room," from a former BBC reporter who is now at Al Jazeera. When asked who he thought would "stop America" (i.e., keep American military from unbridled steamrolling of the entire world), his answer was "Americans". And he believed it. For all the inequities of power, money, and access among Americans, that's still a pretty empowering statement about the average Joe voter.
I agree Vinamn. Also, I dont trust those frenchies. I mean, they were against the US war in Iraq, and they clearly dont like Americans. Tholse bloody forg eating french. They eat frogs for god's sake!!! They too have nuclear weapons. Hey, that must be reason enough to invade. I mean, how can you trust people who eat frogs with nuclear weapons? Come on, think about it, an American flag on top of the Eiffel tower... I tell you, they cant be trusted, inveade them!!!
I think you're being naive Andy. I'm sure the US government would rather spend the billions and billions of dollars of foreign "aid" on domestic problems. They spend it and "help" so they can get political, economical and military power.
And helping is one thing and invading a country against international law completely another. My examples show how fast the US is to "help" when they dont have a lot of national interests in the region. Even the fall of Yugoslavia was in their interest, as it was the biggest and most powerful communist state in Europe after the USSR, and also one of the biggest military powers in the world. And look at us now. I'm not saying they were responsible for it, altho they may very well have been, but it did play very nicely in their hands. You see, sometimes the US protects its interests by "helping", and sometimes by doing nothing.
And yes, they do have some interest in Bosnia, and thats partly why they helped. There are two large US army bases in Bosnia, one of which is about to become the main NATO base in the region.
"It's not all about the benefits for us, ya know." I'm sorry Andy, but it is.
Exactly. Why do Americans never ask why the rest of the world hates them?
- Status