Why is it OK to bash the US?

[Maveric169]

Originally posted by Kr0m
This google search is kind of funny...

So is This One

 

[muzikool]

Originally posted by Maveric169
So is This One

Kind of defeats the purpose. The funny thing about those searches is that you can put in general queries and get back funny results. That query was a bit too specific. I actually support our administration, but did find that "miserable failure" query to be pretty funny.

 

[kitct]

Originally posted by Maveric169
So is This One

Good one Maverick.

 

[Erbmaster]

Originally posted by Maveric169
Yet I don't see you bashing the UK, or any other countries for it.

that'll probably be because the thread's entitled Why is it
OK to bash the US? not Why is it OK to bash the UK?

You do make a valid point though. The (English) government is systematically killing my country.
I don't subscribe for a moment that Blair is remotely interested in
the views and wishes of the British people.
He's more concerned with trying to play the global player, and making a fool of himself, and us in the process.

Don't forget that British soldiers got dragged into the controversial "war" in Iraq.
Public concensus here generally supports the soldiers, (as you'd expect) but not the invasion.

However this is off-topic, as the whole Blair thing would get many people posting their views.

Suffice to say imo the UK is not without faults, but the UN & US Premier really do deserve the slating.
Not least for the way the whole WOMD inspection affair, and the subsequent developments transpired.

On a lighter note....Funny google links guys

 

[Grandmaster]

Originally posted by Maveric169
Well of course not, and I am sure the Iraqies don't either, but at the same time if I knew the occuping force was comming, and I was not going to fight, I would get the hell out.

Man, it is not as easy as you think. Your forgetting that the average Iraqi is very poor and moving costs money. Seriously, just think about it for a second. What if China decided it hated the US and bombed the US, where would you go? What would you do with all your belongings?

 

[Geffy]

Originally posted by Maveric169
Well first of all your trying to compare a terrorist attack to a decarled war. I think you need to pull your head out of your bullocks and do some reasearch.

And as for the red cross yes it is sad that they got killed as they were there to help everyone and anyone, but they knew the risks that intailed setting up shop where they did. In fact the US military told them many times to move from that location.

No I am comparing two terrorist attacks, the terrorist attacks on the US by Bin Laden and the terrorist attacks on Iraq by the US.
Now dont take it the wrong way that I said that the US attacks on Iraq are terrorist attacks, but if you can understand the whole "Terrorist/Freedom Fighter" duality then you will see what I mean.
You cant deny that the US terrorised the people of Iraq. Also Bin Laden had declared war on the "infidels", so his attack was part of a declared war as well.

The US military told them to move from that warehouse, why cause it was in the country, maybe they should work on the guidance systems before hand so that they can avoid hitting things like Red Cross buildings and ALLIED aircraft.

BTW my head is not in my bullocks nor my buttocks

Also your Google thing not only being more targetted than a US patriot missile also primarily brings you to information about UK Government websites not attracting users, which is nowhere near as entertaining, or relevant, as "miserable failures" first link being George W Bush

 

[Maveric169]

Originally posted by o_87
Man, it is not as easy as you think. Your forgetting that the average Iraqi is very poor and moving costs money. Seriously, just think about it for a second. What if China decided it hated the US and bombed the US, where would you go? What would you do with all your belongings?

Were talking about getting your person and family out of harms way, not moving to another place here. Belonging can be replaced, your life can't. It would cost me $40 to drive to Canada. I understand your point, and it is valid to a point, but at the same time.......

 

[Maveric169]

Originally posted by Geffy
No I am comparing two terrorist attacks, the terrorist attacks on the US by Bin Laden and the terrorist attacks on Iraq by the US.
Now dont take it the wrong way that I said that the US attacks on Iraq are terrorist attacks, but if you can understand the whole "Terrorist/Freedom Fighter" duality then you will see what I mean.
You cant deny that the US terrorised the people of Iraq. Also Bin Laden had declared war on the "infidels", so his attack was part of a declared war as well.

The US military told them to move from that warehouse, why cause it was in the country, maybe they should work on the guidance systems before hand so that they can avoid hitting things like Red Cross buildings and ALLIED aircraft.

BTW my head is not in my bullocks nor my buttocks

Also your Google thing not only being more targetted than a US patriot missile also primarily brings you to information about UK Government websites not attracting users, which is nowhere near as entertaining, or relevant, as "miserable failures" first link being George W Bush

Do I really need to post the definition of "terriost" for you?

As far as needing a better guidance system, considering the US has the best technology in the world for weapons systems, I would love to see it done better. Accidents happen. Which I guess now by your logic, is the US's fault also.

And yes my google search is more directed, but this thread is about the US and not G.W. Bush

 

[Geffy]

Originally posted by Maveric169
Do I really need to post the definition of "terriost" for you?

As far as needing a better guidance system, considering the US has the best technology in the world for weapons systems, I would love to see it done better. Accidents happen. Which I guess now by your logic, is the US's fault also.

And yes my google search is more directed, that is because it had to be, we have this annoying thing called free speach where anyone can say what they want to about their govenment, unlike the rest of the world.

terroist yes just wtf is that

terms are relative, the US government is terrorising people in Iraq, a Terrorist is one who Terrorises a person of group of people.

Dictionary.com
terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

terrorism

n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
n: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I would say that the US was intimidating and coercing Iraq into compliance by the use and the threatened use of force
Just cause its one government doing it to another doesnt mean its not terrorism.

If something attacks and kills your allies then it is far from the best and it should be improved or scrapped, the system was developed, maintained, run and operating under the flag of the US, therefore it is the responsibilty of the US, I would have thought that kind of logic was obvious.

You arent the only country with Free Speech, we have had it since the Magna Carta.

George W Bush and his actions are some of the reasons that people dislike and/or hate the United States

 

[X-Istence]

That is the funny thing, either way it can be seen as they are "freedom fighters"

I got in a huge debate about this at school, and i agree with Geffy totally, Maverick i would like you to find counter evidence that terrorisism means somethinge else than what the US is doing to the iraqies.

That google search is very funny indeed, and i totally agree with it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now i will request one thing, we stop the flaming in this thread, otherwise it will have to be closed, and that would be a real shame.

Thank you

X-Istence and the mod team

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Maveric169
Well as usuall, the UN wanted to turn a blind eye and ignore it's responsibilites (as usual) so the US did bash the UN to put the UN in the spot light and bring attention to the fact that the UN was just sitting on there collective arses. Then after the UN had no other choice but to listen (as the whole world started asking why they are not doing anything) the US put it's request to the UN.

As far as your statement on "ethics", it is no different that you disagreeing with your employer on an issue and then still going to work the next day. Wether the US likes it or not they still did the responsible thing and put the matter to the UN.

As far as bribery, ok, I suppose you can call it that. But tell me this, name 1 country that does not do the very same thing. Just 1. I guarentee that you can't. Yet I don't see you bashing the UK, or any other countries for it.

It is funny how the US is the only country that does everything wrong and how everyone else is squeaky clean.

your points keep varying m8

the UN is suposed to keep teh peace... Iraq was not a threat to anyone outside of its own borders... the only people making a noise were the brits and the americans... whether or not Iraq possessed the ability to cause harm to another nation were clearly answered by our attack on the nation... they had no army to speak of but a token force...

the UN is reluctant to authorise the use of force... specially when it is requested by a minority of its members... recall there is such a thing as a democracy... the US loves to veto other nations proposals... its only fair that we have some of our more ridiculous proposals vetoed or threatened to be vetoed...

about the employer thing... the US in not employed by the UN and vice versa... the only reason the US was looking to have its new resolution passed was to legitimise its use of force so it would not be facing the global condemnation it faced... obviously it realised early on that it did not have the votes of enough nations with populations under 200,000 and britain/australia and spain so it didn't go through with the resolution... saving face...

concerning the bribery... you said the US did not bribe anyone... I showed that we did... britain and the rest don't have to be brought into this since this thread is not about them but the US...

the US does not do everything wrong... it just makes some boneheaded foreign relations moves and follows personal agenda's in situations where it need not... I do not have to put up a list of our 'foreign interventions' for you to know we have periodically stuck our noses where they need not ever have been and totally messed things up...

when the US decides to do things like invading iraq in the guise of its own safety... the collective groan that goes up round the world is due to our history of handling regime changes...

 

[Maveric169]

Originally posted by Geffy
terroist yes just wtf is that

terms are relative, the US government is terrorising people in Iraq, a Terrorist is one who Terrorises a person of group of people.


I would say that the US was intimidating and coercing Iraq into compliance by the use and the threatened use of force
Just cause its one government doing it to another doesnt mean its not terrorism.

If something attacks and kills your allies then it is far from the best and it should be improved or scrapped, the system was developed, maintained, run and operating under the flag of the US, therefore it is the responsibilty of the US, I would have thought that kind of logic was obvious.

You arent the only country with Free Speech, we have had it since the Magna Carta.

George W Bush and his actions are some of the reasons that people dislike and/or hate the United States

So what your saying is there is no such thing as war, it is all acts of terrorism, (any type of conflict falls under that deffinition)? Or is it just when the US is involved?

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Maveric169
So what your saying is there is no such thing as war, it is all acts of terrorism, (any type of conflict falls under that deffinition)? Or is it just when the US is involved?

the US has a tendency lately of calling everyone terrorists but what Geffy was doing was showing that per the dictionary definition of the term... the US's act of attrition v/s iraq could also be termed terrorism...

 

[Maveric169]

Originally posted by Sazar
your points keep varying m8

Nope, just too many to put all in one post.

the UN is suposed to keep teh peace... Iraq was not a threat to anyone outside of its own borders... the only people making a noise were the brits and the americans... whether or not Iraq possessed the ability to cause harm to another nation were clearly answered by our attack on the nation... they had no army to speak of but a token force...

That is not all the UN is responsible for. That is why there are multiple departments within the UN, like the security counsel. Here is a LINK from the UN site to the security counsel as to what there role is.

All matters, reguardless of what area they pertain to goto the UN. I also find your statement that Iraq was not a threat to anyone very interesting. Lets have a little history lesson on that:

On July 16, 1979, President Bakr was succeeded by Saddam Hussein, whose regime steadily developed an international reputation for repression, human rights abuses, and terrorism. Hussein forced his predecessor to resign and had 55 senior party activists and army officers executed for treason. However, there was no real evidence of treason. The reason for the purge was either opposition to Hussein’s replacing al-Bakr or a dispute over the way in which Hussein would be elected. A few more executions for disloyalty from 1982 to 1986 sent a clear message that no one could question the new president’s decisions and survive.

A long-standing territorial dispute over control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway between Iraq and Iran broke into full-scale war on Sept. 20, 1980, when Iraq invaded western Iran. The eight-year war cost the lives of an estimated 1.5 million people, and finally ended in a UN-brokered ceasefire in 1988. Poison gas was used by both Iran and Iraq.

In July 1990, President Hussein asserted spurious territorial claims on Kuwaiti land. A mediation attempt by Arab leaders failed, and on Aug. 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait and set up a puppet government. The UN unsuccessfully imposed trade sanctions against Iraq to pressure it to withdraw. On Jan. 18, 1991, UN forces, under the leadership of U.S. general Norman Schwarzkopf, launched Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), liberating Kuwait in less than a week.

The war did little to dwarf Iraq's resilient dictator. Rebellions by both Shi'ites and Kurds, encouraged by the U.S., were brutally crushed. In 1991, the UN set up a northern no-fly zone to protect Iraq's Kurdish population; in 1992 a southern no-fly zone was established as a buffer between Iraq and Kuwait and to protect Shi'ites.

The UN Security Council imposed sanctions beginning in 1990, which barred Iraq from selling oil except in exchange for food and medicine. The sanctions against Iraq have failed to crush its leader but have caused catastrophic suffering among its people—the country's infrastructure is in ruins, and disease, malnutrition, and the infant mortality rate have skyrocketed.

The UN weapons inspections team mandated to ascertain that Iraq had destroyed all its nuclear, chemical, biological, and ballistic arms after the war was continually thwarted by Saddam Hussein. In Nov. 1997, he expelled the American members of the UN inspections team, a standoff that stretched on until Feb. 1998. But in Aug. 1998, Hussein again put a halt to the inspections. On Dec. 16, the United States and Britain began Operation Desert Fox, four days of intensive air strikes. From then on, the U.S. and Britain conducted hundreds of air strikes on Iraqi targets within the no-fly zones. The sustained, low-level warfare continued unabated into 2003. (taken from inforplease.com and MSN encarta)

Now that we have had a bit of a history lesson do you still think Iraq was not a threat to anyone?

the UN is reluctant to authorise the use of force... specially when it is requested by a minority of its members... recall there is such a thing as a democracy... the US loves to veto other nations proposals... its only fair that we have some of our more ridiculous proposals vetoed or threatened to be vetoed...

about the employer thing... the US in not employed by the UN and vice versa... the only reason the US was looking to have its new resolution passed was to legitimise its use of force so it would not be facing the global condemnation it faced... obviously it realised early on that it did not have the votes of enough nations with populations under 200,000 and britain/australia and spain so it didn't go through with the resolution... saving face...

I wasn't trying to say that the US is employed by the UN or anything of the sort, I was using it as a realationship correlation. Your statement seemed to suggest that the US was hippocrical by bashing the UN and the submitting there request. Reguardless oh how inept the UN is there is a standard protocal that is followed when dealing with international affairs that affect everyone worldwide. And I was stating that it was the responsible thing to do.

concerning the bribery... you said the US did not bribe anyone... I showed that we did... britain and the rest don't have to be brought into this since this thread is not about them but the US...

And as I have just proved your whole "bribery" point is null and void

the US does not do everything wrong... it just makes some boneheaded foreign relations moves and follows personal agenda's in situations where it need not... I do not have to put up a list of our 'foreign interventions' for you to know we have periodically stuck our noses where they need not ever have been and totally messed things up...

when the US decides to do things like invading iraq in the guise of its own safety... the collective groan that goes up round the world is due to our history of handling regime changes...

I agree with that. The US has stuck it's nose into affairs that it really didn't need to per se, and has not done a great job in regime changes, but it is also rarely the US all alone in these processes. I don't think any country or government has ever faciliated a "good" regime change. But at least they try.

 

[Sazar]

so you are suggesting that iraq posed a significant global threat @ the time the USA took action against them?

I am very well aware of Iraq's history as well as their non-compliance of various portions of resolution 1441 and their actions over the past decade... I have taken up this matter with many other posters on a different website in a thread comprising a hundred odd pages... so I am very privy to information pertaining to events in the recent past...

per your going back in time we should have attacked ourselves for selling wmd's and supporting the IRA ?

obviously not... the time frame we are discussing (or I assumed we were discussing) is far more recent...

now to your other points...

Yes... I think the US was extremely hypocritcal in its actions concerning the UN.. as hypocritical as it was saying it did not need any assistance with Iraq and that it could go it alone... there was a very specific reason many of us had not wanted this war on Iraq and sought an alternative... the US cannot afford this war by itself and sustain it alone... little thought was paid to what would happen after the event... if you follow my posts on this forum and others on the web you will note I have not changed my stance and have been asking the same questions from many months before we attacked... what would the US do after saddam left... unfortuantely we are learning on the fly and as we do the rest of the world discovers once again that the US shoots first and thinks about its actions later...

bribery... hmm... as I said and have responded to... what the US attempted to do was influence votes in the UN through various means... in my book that amounts to bribery...

bribe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brb)n.

1. Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.
2.Something serving to influence or persuade.

case in point... now lets move past this since it is a moot point... irrefutable too

The US has stuck it's nose into affairs that it really didn't need to per se, and has not done a great job in regime changes, but it is also rarely the US all alone in these processes. I don't think any country or government has ever faciliated a "good" regime change. But at least they try.

that is the entire problem right there...

the US has no business going round dictating which soveign nation can and cannot keep its government... it is completely unethical and is a major reason for us having the standing we do in the court of global public opinion...

undoubtedly there were situations where the US was not alone when it tried to cause a regime change but it has been involved in so many situaitons that it is a given...

most times it has been to install a puppet government that passes favorablel measures to the US or to prevent what it views as an inappropriate relationship between one nation and another... recall Iran... once a liberal islamic nation that has only over the past decade started reforms to get back to a state it once had...

no nation should 'try' to cause regime change in another in the world as it exists now... the UN exists for the sole purpose of preventing such things...

Saddam going into exile would have been a brilliant victory for all concerned and would not have cost us the $100+ billion dollars it is costing us now... nor the ill-will of the world...

however now that we are in... for good or for bad we have to see this out...

 

[gonaads]

You know, it's really strange how everyone brings up one thing or another about the way the U.S. has gottin their hands into everything in the world or on other countries. The U.S. is a country that is young by the standards of the other countries on this planet. The politics here is screwed but it is screwed in many other parts of the globe. I am Hispanic and Native American so I have serious feeling against the U.S. but I also have the utmost respect and love for my country even though it is f00ked up. Many of you are throwing the Middle East into this discussion as to who is screwin it up the most... The U.S., the U.N., Iraq, Afganistan... Yet you continue stating the U.S. involvement. But if you look back in history, I mean way back. Not in the 70's not in the 50's. Go way further back to where it all started, when an empire in Europe decided to draw up borders, bondaries in the Middle East and then the shit hit the fan and we now have the crap that is going on in the Middle East. And NO don't begin with that the U.S. helped Bin Ladden or the Saddam was put their by the U.S. because that is irrelevent to the way it began. If this nation/empire had left the region alone the state of affairs their would not be what it is.

The U.S. is an arogant nation, it (the government) feels that it has to protect everyone else in the world. We have History to prove this. We have Korea, we have Vietnam, we have Panama and Grenada. The U.S. every time was in there to impose what the U.S. calls Freedom of one sort or another. Be it because of a regime, dictator or whatever. How many other countries in history have gone round the globe doing things, but back then it was called conquering or inhabiting or imposing their belief of the way to live. Hmmmmm... Spain, France, the Romans, the Greeks, Germany, England. Many of these countries or empires created the crap that is going on in this world today due to things that they started years/centuries ago. The U.S. has their hand in alot of crap, alot of crap that was already there, but eventually they leave. There is more openness in this country that lets the world see our screw ups, our internal scandels than any other. If the U.S. was like other countries that control the Media half the crap that occours you would never know about. YES, there is still alot that does not see the light of day but I would like to see some of the countries of some of the members here that are not from the U.S. put their dirty laundry out in the open.

The U.S. has many many faults and a long way to go. The problem is it has grown in a way that scares the rest of the planet. It is too powerful for being so inexperienced.

U.S. bashing is a part of American's lives we live with it and tolerate it. Some don't and it is not gonna stop any time soon.

 

[Sazar]

Gonaads..

there is no doubt other nations messed up in the middle east and elsewhere and this is reflected strongly in many parts of the world...

but the whole thing with that is LEARNING from ones mistakes...

case in point... england... just over a half century ago england was still a colonial power... they were forced to give up many colonies due to various reasons BUT they also learnt many things over the years... in dealing with terrorism... in dealing with flashpoint situations...

look @ the way the brits have handled the situation in their portion of Iraq... the manner of interaction and understanding... this is in sharp contrast to the manner in which the US conducts business in iraq and other parts of the world...

its a shoot first attitude and yes... it is warranted due to the danger of the situation but we have been in many situations like this before... you can't just go round shooting people everytime.. in every conflict...

until the US starts to understand other people and their cultures there is going to be no change in peoples perspectives of us...

this is a wonderful nation with wonderful people and opportunities... but my living here does not make me completely oblivious to what our nation is doing... it also does not make me immune to the rest of the world and their history...

the media here is controlled to an extent... there is more filtering than there needs to be and censorship through various influences... and we can't really compare ourselves to other nations in this respect sicne we hold ourselves up as a beacon of diversity/freedom and understanding...

US bashing is a consequence of our actions... it is not something we should just accept but rather understand and use to our advantage to learn and change the way we do things...

p.s. when was the last time the US was involved actively in a peace-keeping operation... not the conflict before but the actual peace-keeping operation in a non-violent manner... to understand what I am talking about... look @ the japanese volunteers and their actions around the world and the manner in which they are conducted...

 

[gonaads]

Again... U.S.

too young and too inexperienced. Too much power for it's own good and not understanding how to NOT use it.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by gonaads
Again... U.S.

too young and too inexperienced. Too much power for it's own good and not understanding how to NOT use it.

a good earful of bashing should do it good

 

[Erbmaster]

Again, well said Sazar. Nice to see an objective viewpoint here, not one just borne from patriotism.

People do need to realise that everyone makes mistakes, but what's important is how you handle your affairs in light of those mistakes, and how you move forward from there and what you learn from it.