Why is it OK to bash the US?

[Geffy]

Originally posted by Sazar
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...

That is correct sir.

also agree with Sazar and Gonaads last comments as well

BTW Erbmaster nice sig and avatar

 

[kitct]

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:

Good post Maverick.

And for those who say we are alone in Iraq, I believe we have 18 nations who actively or passively support us.

An its a shame when the global socialists insist on relagating all world affairs to an irrelavant org such as the UN. Talk,talk,talk,talk,talk,talk,bleh,bleh,bleh,bleh,resolution,resolution,resolution from an org that profited on every illegal barrel (2% on each and every barrel) Iraq traded (w/france,germany russia,china and n.korea) for weapons.With so many hands in the (cookie jar) no wonder no body wanted to stop a brutal dictatorship.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Jan
Good post Maverick.

And for those who say we are alone in Iraq, I believe we have 18 nations who actively or passively support us.

An its a shame when the global socialists insist on relagating all world affairs to an irrelavant org such as the UN. Talk,talk,talk,talk,talk,talk,bleh,bleh,bleh,bleh,resolution,resolution,resolution from an org that profited on every illegal barrel (2% on each and every barrel) Iraq traded (w/france,germany russia,china and n.korea) for weapons.With so many hands in the (cookie jar) no wonder no body wanted to stop a brutal dictatorship.

jan... the US itself oversaw the most brutal parts of the dictatorship and made no moves to say anything concerning the use of chemical/bio weapons by Iraq pre Gulf war 1...

undoubtedly there is clear evidence of transactions between foreign nations and iraq post sanctions... just as there is evidence that US companies also conducted transactions... there is a list on the UN website with all companies and their nation of origin that conducted various transactions with iraq post-sanctions..

the US seems to bash on the UN when it suits its own goals and yet the US itself was one of the founding members and was one of those that has and has regularly used the veto power... even in the light of overwhelming majority to the contrary... are there changes that should be made to the UN... yes there are... there is no question about this but to claim that the UN is ineffectual is ludicrous... they have saved far more lives through peace-keeping operations and UNAid and UNICEF and other such organisations than the United States itself ever could...

the UN has more than just the armed forces in its makeup...

now the question of brutal dictatorships...

there are other more brutal dictatorships in existence and no one has complained about the US having its fingers in the cookie jar on so many occasions before... cept the terrorists...

 

[Vector_One]

Originally posted by Geffy
Now dont take it the wrong way that I said that the US attacks on Iraq are terrorist attacks

How would we take that the wrong way?

 

[neo090282]

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, but this thread is about the US and not G.W. Bush

Accidents happen, yes....but the chances can be whittled down. It is common knowledge that the use of cluster bombs causes many casulties as they are not accurate and therefore it is not recommended for use..............but hey were the US throw a few cluster bombs on that Iraqi suburb....

 

[X-Istence]

Thats the attitude what got the US in this mess in the first place.

If you are going to kill innocent people, make sure to kill all of them, so that not a single one can strap a bomb to themselves and walk up to a soldier and kill him, and hurt a few others.

Thats my view on that

The US needs to stop telling other countries what to do, and how to do it. Its the one reason the US is hated so much.

 

[Maveric169]

Originally posted by X-Istence
Thats the attitude what got the US in this mess in the first place.

If you are going to kill innocent people, make sure to kill all of them, so that not a single one can strap a bomb to themselves and walk up to a soldier and kill him, and hurt a few others.

Thats my view on that

The US needs to stop telling other countries what to do, and how to do it. Its the one reason the US is hated so much.

That does not seem to be a positive move forward. While I have allowed myself to become a bit defensive on this topic (I am ex-military after all) I really wish that at some point before humanities extinction that we are all able to create a utopian society. I would like to see a day when war was a dirty word, and that a death was caused by a car accident not a bombing. As far a s the US is concerned I would much rather see us providing our knowledge to others (telling outher countries what to do per se) than bombing the **** out of them. Saddly there are some circumstances that require just leveling the place and starting over. Is this the "right" thing to do? No, it is not, but sometimes it is the only prudent option available.

 

[Maveric169]

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

yes I am, Iraq has posed a significant global threat since the early 1950's, as my post on Iraq's history will entail.

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...

I am afraid that I am not aware of your other posts, only those that you have posted in this thread.

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

And again that is a null point as there is not one nation that has not done the same or worse.

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...

I find that you link responsible with hypocirtical interesting. The US is more than capable of going it alone (considering that 90% of the war is being done by the US alone) and that because we would prefer not to have to do it alone (as it affects the entire world) we are hipocrites. I disagree that there was no plan for a post Saddam Iraq, but I think the US made a few to many presumptions on how it would all take place, requiring some fine tuning and adjustment. I also find it interesting that while the rest of the world likes to point the finger on the subject not one has offered any suggestions as to how it could be done better. Sounds like more back-seat driving than anything else.

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...



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

noted

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...

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that the US has made the best decisions in foriegn affairs, yet at the same time most of the countries that are pointing the finger are the very same ones that fully supported the US's position. The pot calling the kettle black. The only reason the US has been involved in so many situations is that we are always the one that gets called to deal with global problems. You never see the UK, or any other country getting called to deal with afganistan, iran, n. korea, etc. The whole world has the US on speed dial when ever there is a crisis affecting anyone, and we are expected to deal with it. So yea, we are involved if we want to be or not. And god forbid if we refuse to help!

 

[Sazar]

ok maveric... I'll do a point counter point

Iraq has posed a significant global threat since the early 1950's, as my post on Iraq's history will entail.

this I cannot for the life of me understand.. if iraq were to have posed such a significant threat for all this time why did the US take it upon itself not only to provide weapons but also biological agents and key intelligence to Iraq over a period of time? Iraq @ one time had a per capita income exceeding that of australia... its not like they have been a backward nation all their modern existence and neither did they pose a global threat @ the time of Bush's attack on Iraq

were iraq a global threat... the other nations of the world would have been a little more concerned ESPECIALLY in light of 9/11 during which time the worlds sympathy was with the US...

I am afraid that I am not aware of your other posts, only those that you have posted in this thread.

I just posted that it appeared per your post that I was unaware of the infractions or the circumstances thereof of the UN resolutions

I find that you link responsible with hypocirtical interesting. The US is more than capable of going it alone (considering that 90% of the war is being done by the US alone) and that because we would prefer not to have to do it alone (as it affects the entire world) we are hipocrites. I disagree that there was no plan for a post Saddam Iraq, but I think the US made a few to many presumptions on how it would all take place, requiring some fine tuning and adjustment. I also find it interesting that while the rest of the world likes to point the finger on the subject not one has offered any suggestions as to how it could be done better. Sounds like more back-seat driving than anything else.

I do not consider the actions of the US in some respects to be responsible at all.. and this is a major cause of angst for me as it happens to be one of the main reasons I think there is general mistrust of the interests of our policies...

the plans for post war iraq even today are unlikely to suceed because even today we are pushing chalabi... we still have white house reports dealing with groups such as the sunni's or shiites or the kurds but there is very little mention or even an inkling of understanding of the various factions that comprise these larger ethnicities...

the brits made the same mistake back around the time of Iraq's modern day creation and the US does not seem to have learnt any lessons from their mis-steps...

ergo... yes we have a flawed post-war iraq policy and if we do things in haste we will continue to reap the rewards of conflict in other 9/11-esque events... whether on US soil or elsewhere

there are various means to do things better but the rest of the world has been informed that the US has final say on matters and they are in charge of affairs there... again not endearing to people who may be offering help and a further reason for why some may bash the US or its policies...

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that the US has made the best decisions in foriegn affairs, yet at the same time most of the countries that are pointing the finger are the very same ones that fully supported the US's position. The pot calling the kettle black. The only reason the US has been involved in so many situations is that we are always the one that gets called to deal with global problems. You never see the UK, or any other country getting called to deal with afganistan, iran, n. korea, etc. The whole world has the US on speed dial when ever there is a crisis affecting anyone, and we are expected to deal with it. So yea, we are involved if we want to be or not. And god forbid if we refuse to help!

the reason we get called on every so often is because of our links to those nations and their histories... ie afghanistan... we were there no so long ago to an extent we are one of the main importers of the opium based products grown in that nation and directly/indirectly fund the war lords there...

Iraq is another such nation... we helped enforce saddam and his regime through provision of money/arms/biological agents/intelligence and basic alliances... n. korea again same thing...

I don't think it is a coincidence at all...

that and the fact that america does have the political and military might to get people to talk and make resolutions... just like it has the veto power to regularly block any resolution that israel feels is not in its best interest...

that one line from spiderman comes to mind... with great power comes great responsibility

I loved that movie...

 

[Maveric169]

Originally posted by Sazar
ok maveric... I'll do a point counter point



this I cannot for the life of me understand.. if iraq were to have posed such a significant threat for all this time why did the US take it upon itself not only to provide weapons but also biological agents and key intelligence to Iraq over a period of time? Iraq @ one time had a per capita income exceeding that of australia... its not like they have been a backward nation all their modern existence and neither did they pose a global threat @ the time of Bush's attack on Iraq

were iraq a global threat... the other nations of the world would have been a little more concerned ESPECIALLY in light of 9/11 during which time the worlds sympathy was with the US...

You brought up a very interesting point which made me go and do some reasearch to prove you wrong, but unfortunatly, I got just the opposite. Here is a LINK to a column that addresses this. I found a few others but this one was the most concise. Now while I do agree that there are times the you need to help a country defend it's self just to level the playing ground, this doesn't appear to me to be the case in this instance. I have to admit that I never truly belived that the US war in Iraq was solely for the purposes stated, but it almost looks more like a long term setup job than anything else in this case. Kinda like giving a drug dealer a kilo of dope and telling them you want 10% of the profits and having the cops right arround the corner just to bust him. (Here are all these weapons that your not allowed to have, ohh btw, we want to account for those weapons or face the consequences).

While I do still firmly belive that the Iraq government was a threat to the free world, it is appearing that it was almost created by the US for that sole purpose. Kinda like giving a pyro gas and matches and saying "don't light that now". There is something funny about this situation that I don't think I realized before or didn't pay enough attention to. I will need to do a little more digging to come to a more concreate position on this.

I just posted that it appeared per your post that I was unaware of the infractions or the circumstances thereof of the UN resolutions

Ahh, ok. Makes sence now.

I do not consider the actions of the US in some respects to be responsible at all.. and this is a major cause of angst for me as it happens to be one of the main reasons I think there is general mistrust of the interests of our policies...

the plans for post war iraq even today are unlikely to suceed because even today we are pushing chalabi... we still have white house reports dealing with groups such as the sunni's or shiites or the kurds but there is very little mention or even an inkling of understanding of the various factions that comprise these larger ethnicities...

the brits made the same mistake back around the time of Iraq's modern day creation and the US does not seem to have learnt any lessons from their mis-steps...

ergo... yes we have a flawed post-war iraq policy and if we do things in haste we will continue to reap the rewards of conflict in other 9/11-esque events... whether on US soil or elsewhere

In my research into the previous topic above, I am finding more and more statements that support that position. There is nothing in any 1 statement, but if you take them all collectivly over a period of time, I think I have to agree with you. I am getting the impression that the military planners for a post war iraq really do seem a bit baffaled by all the different factions and religious beliefs. And I think because of that they are going to really have to rely of the people of Iraq to develope their own for of government as they do understand these differences. I am now thinking that the only way a good/positive regime change will happen is if the US doesn't try to stick it's views and policies into there government too much. If they do, I think it will fail terriably, and the people of Iraq will revolt.

there are various means to do things better but the rest of the world has been informed that the US has final say on matters and they are in charge of affairs there... again not endearing to people who may be offering help and a further reason for why some may bash the US or its policies...

the reason we get called on every so often is because of our links to those nations and their histories... ie afghanistan... we were there no so long ago to an extent we are one of the main importers of the opium based products grown in that nation and directly/indirectly fund the war lords there...

Iraq is another such nation... we helped enforce saddam and his regime through provision of money/arms/biological agents/intelligence and basic alliances... n. korea again same thing...

I don't think it is a coincidence at all...

that and the fact that america does have the political and military might to get people to talk and make resolutions... just like it has the veto power to regularly block any resolution that israel feels is not in its best interest...

that one line from spiderman comes to mind... with great power comes great responsibility

I loved that movie...

I really can't argue with that, as the more I dig into it, the more I have to agree. I can see it being very difficult for another country to publicy denounce the US for not taking it's suggestions as they really wouldn't want to be in "disfavor" of the US. But on the same token as you stated the US does have these links and history of these countries to refer back to, so what makes other countries that don't have this background think they know better? That is a tough one to debate as I doubt any of us will ever be privy to that level of "who knows what", but it is an interesting point - counter - point.

 

[Sazar]

wel to be fair... the belleville link is an editorial first and foremost supporting that publication/writers POV so it can't really be held to disprove or prove a point..

still I think you will see that I try not to post un-substantiated or unsupported positions... even if the positions I have are somewhat controversial on occasion..

I am a pacifist @ heart and therefore conflict is not something I am for... I understand that human nature has a large part to play in it though and conflict is an inherent part of our pysche

however I am glad we have found some middle ground...

keep up the posts maverick... its been an interesting discussion so far...

 

[Perris Calderon]

let's put this back to this point...why we are hated now more then ever before in history

it's because we are in a war for one man that wants to have a war.

so badly does he want this war, he would put together lies and stories that he knew were lies and stories

he would force his CIA to lie

he would force his scientists to lie

he would force his most powerfully aids to lie.

just so he could have his little war.

would bush be able to have this war without his lies?

no..America would not have let him get away with this without lies

has he made American more secure because of his war, as his promise and objective?

no, we are more in danger of terrorist attack because of bush then in the history of this young country

we are more hated around the world because of bush then in the history of this country.

this was quite a feat, as before he started his fake war, more people supported America then in it's history..and now we are more hated...unbelievable

WHAT A MISERABLE FAILURE THIS HEAD OF STATE IS.

will our future generation be more secure due to this fake war?

no...bush has created a rallying point that no one can deny, and it will hold as a rallying against us point for generations.again

what is most disturbing, is that he gets such a free pass from the "liberal media"

that's what's most disturbing

 

[Grandmaster]

Agreed. It's great to see when people with different opinions can discuss in a mature, non-flaming way.

 

[Sazar]

dealer... tbh... I failt to see how you can singularly blame bush for all of this..

if you read and investigate you will find a lot of behind the scenes power play and string pulling going on...

bush is the public face of this eventuality but the power brokers behind the scenes are just as guilty/if not more so for pursuing their personal agenda's..

personally I like to blame him and cheney equally

 

[Perris Calderon]

cheney as well..he's the puppeteer...he didn't write the script, but he pulls the strings...and powell for letting himself be such a puppet.

but the buck stops where when it comes to who makes the these international decisions?

the man that talked American patriots to send their children off to die with lies

that's who I blame.

and no wonder the republicans and power brokers wanted this guy in office too is it

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Jan
We are the most powerful and benevolent and giving nation to ever exist on the planet.Still I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who are grateful.

I think it's arrogant comments like this as to why people hate the U.S. There is such a thing as "humility," but, probably out of all the other nations, we have the biggest ego. Sure, it has its advantages, but the kid who brags at school is rarely the most popular.

And I would not brag about our "freedoms and tolerance" yet, because much of the Western world has either equalled or surpassed us on that. The way this nation treats homosexuals, for instance, is downright deplorable for a nation that has such theoretical "freedom and tolerance." The European Union and Canada are far more progressive on the "freedom and tolerance" front.

Anyhow, I've argued this subject fairly regularly since 9/11 now, and I know well enough to know that everyone pretty much has their mind made up. But for a nation that surely doesn't seem to think twice about belittling other nations (think of the Canada and France jokes), we sure don't seem to like it when other nations return the favor.

Melon

 

[Perris Calderon]

and now in hind site, the way we chided france for not believing bush

seems they knew him and his lies well

 

[X-Istence]

Originally posted by melon
I think it's arrogant comments like this as to why people hate the U.S. There is such a thing as "humility," but, probably out of all the other nations, we have the biggest ego. Sure, it has its advantages, but the kid who brags at school is rarely the most popular.

And I would not brag about our "freedoms and tolerance" yet, because much of the Western world has either equalled or surpassed us on that. The way this nation treats homosexuals, for instance, is downright deplorable for a nation that has such theoretical "freedom and tolerance." The European Union and Canada are far more progressive on the "freedom and tolerance" front.

Anyhow, I've argued this subject fairly regularly since 9/11 now, and I know well enough to know that everyone pretty much has their mind made up. But for a nation that surely doesn't seem to think twice about belittling other nations (think of the Canada and France jokes), we sure don't seem to like it when other nations return the favor.

Melon

This is something i can agree on, i ahve 2 homosexual friends at school, and they are lovers, eventhough at first i found it weird to see them kissing, now i dont care anymore, but daily they get insulted, beaten up, and yet they have done nothing, if such behavior would be shown in europe, it would be a really small group, and the large group would stand up for them.

Ive had to fight a few poeple just to make sure that not once again would they get the **** beaten out of them, and have to go home with big black eyes, and a broken jaw or nose.

As with freedom, in europe i found i had more freedom than in the US. With some things i can understand, with others i find it kind of weird. For one in europe and switzerland, where i lived before moving to the us, i could move around freely, and do what i wanted, play in any forest i wanted, and be kilometers away from home and still not have my parents worried. In the US when i am even 1 mile away from home, it has my parents worried, all these phedophiles and other people, why cant the police catch em? And clean em up, and why are there so many? In europe i have yet to get a report on not being allowed to walk around alone at night, hell when i am over at my grand parents in the summer, i would go out and wander around the city, and then walk home at around 12, no worries.

In the US id be a bit more afraid to do so.

This is however a different freedom, but not all that different, in the US the only real way to get your freedom is to be able to drive, and to be able to drive you need a car, and to be able to have a car, you need a drivers license, and to get a drivers license you need to be 17.

While in europe i have other means available to me: Trams, scooter (No, not the ones you stand on, the ones you sit on), motorized bikes and other transportation that can let me go for kilometers at a time without a problem, and not really have to do a lot.

I went to france for the summer with my family, and was told by the people where we were staying to not speak a word of living in the US. A lot of US tourists were denied access to pubs, restaurants, and some were even beat up in the places we went. They had a million and one jokes going around about the US, and listening to them was kind of funny, but if an american would have heard them, they would have pulled a gun, and shot the guy on the spot.

About the US being the one that gives away the most, they also have the most outstanding debts to other countries who helped them with finance and other things. And look at the money that is needed for the Iraq ****, instead of building new buildings for people to live in, or start up new corporations to employ more people, we are putting a lot of money in Iraq that should have been put into the US. We build power grids over there, and yet we are unable to sustain our own power (NY blackout).

If we are going to improve the lives of others, also improve the lives of americans, i personally hate power outages, it leaves me wth work lost, and other kind of crap, and its all because of the infrastructure being old. Hell i dont care if it costs money to rebuild the infrastructure from the ground up, and it comes out of tax payers money, what i do care about is that a countries own people come before those of another country. Why should money to be put into something, which happened because of what the gov't did on purpose knowing full well, that it would cost assloads of money.

Now unless they have a reason to go bomb iraq, i think they should have known better, and put the money to better use.


X-Istence

Note: All views in this post are mine, and are not the views of ntfs.org, its members or any of its affiliates.

 

[X-Istence]

Originally posted by dealer
and now in hind site, the way we chided france for not believing bush

seems they knew him and his lies well

I agree.

 

[j79zlr]

and to get a drivers license you need to be 17.

It is 16 I believe, atleast in Illinois it is.

Anyway, is all of the opposition to the conflict in Iraq because everyone thinks Saddam Hussein was an angel. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. He was almost as evil as Hitler. The US removes a terrible and evil man from power and gets chastized for it, makes sense.

As far as I'm concerned, I say lets just stop all foreign aid, and see who is hated then.